
















• ^ Y 

•i-.\ * v'•, v ,o v , 

<4- * • • v i<. * rfC\' . V /h CT C$ * 

• .-• |M •-; ^ 'SMMPi 0 * 

*' A 

, V s «vv*'«. *> v' *•••- • cv & ■*> 'V 

'o 


O > - £ 

' tc. V> 


^ ’'oVl** .g* A ''o , \ * ,C O, -A O 

c-«, o <0 ° 


4 O 
x> *e* 



,G r c> vrv * * a ✓ . ♦ c 

V^V' V*^V v-^v ^ 

^v% V A* *V£gV. ++ <& 4Va*. *** *€$&'* ^ a* *<fc <T 

V V «> s ^ U.'a /; V, a ,?*• ^v:V ^ V % 

V'° v: ‘V* . 

rp ° 0 ^ 

A' 





>■ ** v % vwf- ; /\ 

rr.* A Jy & a.-. s * a 

u* S^/rTTZ' *%r <y •^$$W’* ° /T «‘ ~~ ■ 

bv* ^o ( 

v> -.- ^ C ku * /( 1 ‘ ^ ^ <?’ 

••% *> V N .’*A A\ .0 **V> > V 

stey. ■e. .♦ .v«v \. A •*d2^'- ^ ** • 

:*gmp; *y» * 

.ft .^3 X==* ❖ 


T 


^o f 


ao° v^* # *°° v 

. ^ V *» • °^ cv 

«- -♦ a ^ .*<afe\ w 



c o~ A > .••‘A. \ C c * .^-:> °o / ,v‘>'^' •%. c c ' • 















FULFILLING OUR PROMISES: 

THE UNITED STATES AND THE HELSINKI FINAL ACT 


A Status Report 









Compiled and Edited by the Staff 
of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 


Washington, D.C. 


November 1979 





























FULFILLING OUR PROMISES: 

THE UNITED^STATES AND THE HELSINKI FINAL 

A Status Report 


Compiled and Edited by the Staff 
of the Commission on Security and Cooperation 


ACT 


in Europe 


Washington, D.C. 


November 1979 



f/-603Jnj 



COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 
Room 328 1, House Annex // 2 
U.S. House of Representatives 
Washington, D.C. 20515 


Florida, Chairman 


Rhode Island, Co-Chairman 


REP. DANTE B. FASCELL, 
SEN. CLAIBORNE PELL, 

SEN. GEORGE McGOVERN, S. Dakota 
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, Vermont 
SEN. RICHARD STONE, Florida 
SEN. JACOB JAVITS, New York 
SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Kansas 


REP. SIDNEY YATES, Illinois 

REP. JONATHAN BINGHAM, New York 

REP. PAUL SIMON, Illinois 

REP. JOHN BUCHANAN, Alabama 

REP. MILL ICENT FENWICK, New Jersey 


E xecutive Branch Corrmi s s i one r s 
PATRICIA DERIAN, Department of State 
DAVID McGIFFERT, Department of Defense 
(VACANT), Department of Commerce 


Corrmi ssion Staff 


R. SPENCER OLIVER, Staff Director 
SAM WISE, Deputy Staff Director 

CANDIS AGNONE, Staff Assistant 
DEBORAH BURNS, Administrative Ass 
CATHERINE COSMAN, Staff Assistant 
LYNNE DAVIDSON, Staff Assistant 
MARY DOMINICK, Staff Assistant 
MEG DONOVAN, Staff Assistant 
FLORENCE GRAVE S, Co n s u1t a n t 
CRAIG HOOVER, Staff Assistant 


and General Counsel 


ESTER KURZ, Staff Assistant 
t BETH KNISLEY, Press Officer 

SUSAN PEDERSON, Staff Assistant 
PAULA PENNINGTON, Office Man. 
HELEN SEN, Staff Assistant 
MARTIN SLETZINGER, Staff Ass't 
KATE STILLMAN, Staff Assistant 




TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Page 

Chapter One 


Introduction 1 

Chapter Two - Security in Europe 

Introduction 8 

Principles 9 

Military Security 23 

Cone 1u sion 29 

Chapter Three - Human Rights 

I n t r oduc tion 31 

Political and Civil Rights 33 

Political Participation 44 

Domestic Surveillance 31 

Political Prisoners 34 

Persons in Confinement 74 

Social and Economic Rights 93 

Healt h 97 

Educa tion 104 

Employment 109 

Hou sing 124 

Women’s Rights 133 

American Indians 148 

Religious Liberty 164 

International Covenants on Human Rights 168 

Cone 1u sion 174 

Chapter Four - Economic and Scientific Cooperation 

In t r oduc tion 17 6 

Commercial Exchanges 178 

Industrial Cooperation and Projects of Common Interest 208 

Provisions Concerning Trade and Industrial Cooperation 212 

Science and Technology 213 

Environmen t 238 

Cooperation in Other Areas 247 

Cone 1u sion 234 


Chapter Five - Cooperation in Humanitarian and Other Fields 


Introduction 236 

Human Contacts 237 

Inf ormation 281 

Radio Broadcasts 287 

Cultural and Educational Exchanges 291 

Cone 1u sion 310 

Chapter S i x 

Cone 1u sion 311 


Appendices 


313 











CHAPTER ONE 


OVERALL INTRODL T CTION 
Background on Commission 

The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 
(CSCE), an independent advisory agency, was created by Public 
Law 94-304, signed June 3, 1976. The legislation, sponsored 
by Rep. Millicent Fenwick and Sen. Clifford P. Case, 

"authorized and directed the Commission to monitor the acts 
of the signatories which reflect compliance with or violation 
of the articles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security 
and Cooperation in Europe, with particular regard to the provi¬ 
sions relating to Cooperation in Humanitarian Fields." 

Chaired by Rep. Dante B. Fascell and co-chaired by Sen. 
Claiborne Pell, the Comnission is composed of six members of 
the Senate, six members of the House of Representatives and 
one member each from the Departments of State, Defense and 
Corrme r ce . 

Commission's Record on Domestic Compliance 

The leaders of 33 East and West European nations, Canada 
and the United States, met in Helsinki, Finland, in August of 
1975 to sign the CSCE Final Act. The comprehensive document 
contains numerous cooperative measures aimed at improving East- 
West relations. Equally important is the pledge each partici¬ 
pating nation made to respect human rights and fundamental free¬ 
doms of its citizens. While the Final Act is not a legally 
binding agreement, it has, as former President Gerald Ford 
pointed out prior to his departure for the Helsinki summit, 
"important moral and political ramifications." 

The Commission has continuously monitored the implementa¬ 
tion record of the U.S. as well as the records of other 
countries which signed the Final Act. Previous Commission 
reports have assessed the U.S. compliance effort and made 
recommendations to improve it. The Commission's first major 
compliance reoort -- " Imp 1 ern.en t a t i on of the Final Act of the 
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe: Findings and 
Recommendations Two Years After Helsinki" -- contains an even 
balance of recommendations for domestic and foreign action. 
Through its hearings on a variety of CSCE subjects and through 
contacts with a wide range of private groups and individuals, 
the Commission has maintained a continuing interest in the U.S. 
compliance record. 


1 






Origins of this Report 


In addition to its routine monitoring of U.S. performance, 
the Commission felt a major study devoted exclusively to evalua¬ 
tion of the U.S. record of compliance with the Helsinki accords 
was needed for several reasons. The first reason stems from 
the results of the first CSCE review meeting held at Belgrade, 
Yugoslavia, from October of 1977 to March of 1978. At Belgrade, 
the U.S. took a strong stand in favor of compliance with all 
the provisions of the Final Act, especially in the area of human 
rights. The head of the U.S. delegation at Belgrade, Justice 
Arthur Goldberg, repeatedly called for an honest accounting 
by all participants. At the same time, he candidly acknowledged 
U.S. shortcomings and urged open discussion concerning the 
records of all 35 CSCE states. Several participants resisted 
charging the U.S. with posturing and claiming that such an 
examination would be tantamount to interference in internal 
affairs -- allegedly in violation of Principle VI of the Final 
Act. However, as the meeting progressed, there was growing 
support for the concept that the obligations of each CSCE state 
were the legitimate concern of all the others. Even the 
staunchest critics of this idea, while continuing to ignore 
criticisms of their own performance, eventually undermined their 
own argument by directing highly polemical attacks against the 
U.S. record. The Commission felt that to insure the long-term 
success of the CSCE process, the U.S. should make a special 
effort in the post-Be 1grade period to demonstrate its good faith 
by taking an honest, comprehensive look at its own performance. 

A second reason for this report is the growing interest in 
U.S. CSCE implementation of private civil rights and other 
groups in the United States. Since the Belgrade meeting at 
least two private Helsinki Watch organizations have been formed, 
one in New York and one in Washington, D.C. Both have ties to 
a number of prominent civil rights groups. These organizations, 
which are really U.S. counterparts to such groups of private 
citizens as the beleaguered Helsinki Monitors in the Soviet 
Union and the Charter '77 in Czechoslovakia, devote considerable 
effort to monitoring U.S. compliance with the Helsinki Final 
Act, especially in the area of human rights. Other private 
groups with a more peripheral interest in CSCE also have 
shown increasing interest in the U.S. implementation record. 

President Jimmy Carter’s strong interest in seeing that the 
U.S. maintains and improves upon a record of compliance second 
to none is a third reason for this report. In his semi-annual 
reports to the Commission, the President has repeatedly called 
for renewed efforts to strengthen U.S. implementation. To 
provide additional force to his words, President Carter, in 
December of 1978, took the unprecedented step of directing some 
20 federal agencies to cooperate closely with the Commission 


2 



and the Department of State in monitoring and encouraging U.S. 
compliance with the Final Act. 

Preparation of this Report 

The Corrmission assigned a major portion of its staff and 
resources to examining the U.S. record. Lacking detailed know¬ 
ledge in many of the specialized areas covered by the Final Act, 
the staff was obliged to turn to outside expertise. The Com¬ 
mission was assisted by a wide range of government agencies 
whose responsibilities are related to fulfilling the promises 
of the Final Act. The Commission also contacted a number of 
reputable private organizations with interest in, and knowledge 
about, various Final Act provisions. In April of 1979, the 
Corrmission held three days of hearings on domestic compliance 
and called as witnesses representatives from the two Helsinki 
Watch organizations and high-level officials of several key 
government agencies. These hearings provided valuable informa¬ 
tion for the report. 

Statements submitted by private organizations and 
individuals about alleged human rights violations in the U.S. 
have been another source for our efforts to monitor the Final 
Act. These cover a broad spectrum of complaints ranging from 
charges of unfair personnel practices at the State Department 
and the Library of Congress to accusations concerning political 
and economic persecution and police harassment. The Commission 
detailed many of these in the report while other charges were 
reviewed directly with the parties involved. 

Framework of the Report 

The report evaluates in detail U.S. implementation of the 
Final Act by responding to allegations of U.S. shortcomings 
from other signatories and private groups and by giving an 
account of positive achievements in both the governmental and 
private spheres. Particularly close scrutiny was used in 
examining U.S. compliance with the human rights provisions of 
Principle VII -- civil and political as well as economic and 
social areas. The U.S. record in this area has been frequently 
criticized. 

During Corrmission hearings, CSCE Chairman, Rep. Dante B. 
Fascell, pointed out the significant difference between the U.S. 
effort and that of other countries, "this is the first time that 
any of the 35 Helsinki states has taken a thorough, objective 
look at its own performance record, taking into account criti¬ 
cism by other CSCE signatories and private domestic monitoring 
groups." In contrast, other reports have been generally self- 
serving accounts, purporting to show how well a particular 
country has implemented the Final Act but ignoring outside crit- 


3 




icism. The Conrmission feels, however, that each CSCE country 
is responsible to the others for its implementation record. 

This report follows the structure of the Final Act by 
discussing, in order, each major section or "basket" of the 
Act. Basket I deals with questions relating to security in 
Europe which includes Human Rights; Basket II, economic and 
scientific cooperation; Basket III, cooperation in humanitarian 
and other fields. 

Sources of Criticism 


The main sources of criticism used in this report were 
the comments made by other CSCE countries at the Belgrade review 
meeting and in their press and publications. The comments of 
U.S. domeStic groups and individuals also have been included. 
Because many accusations are repeated in several sources, no 
attempt has been made to acknowledge each and every source but 
only to address the accusations made. Furthermore, while the 
report attempts to respond to all the criticism that has come 
to our attention, there are instances where the nature of the 
criticism was so vague or so patently propagandistic that a 
response was either impossible or unwarranted. Nevertheless, 
our general policy was to take most criticisms seriously and 
to respond to them in the same vein. 

In addition to press comment and statements made by 
CSCE states, some of the sources for this report were the 
f o1 lowing: 

Look Homeward, Jimmy Carter 

The State of Human Rights, USA 

Prepared by the Communist Party, USA - October, 1978 

USA - The Secret War Against Dissidents 

Novosti Press Agency - Moscow, 1978 

Bourgeois Democracy and Human Rights 

USSR Academy of Sciences - Moscow, 1978 

Report of the Helsinki Human Rights Compliance 

Committee of the United States - San Francisco, 1978 

Further, the Commission has relied extensively on the 
statements and other materials submitted by the two Helsinki 
Watch groups at the April domestic compliance hearings. 


4 









General Guidelines 


When reading and evaluating the report, certain general 
guidelines used in its preparation should be taken into 
account. 


-- Neither the U.S. nor other signatories can be held 
responsible for violations which occurred prior to the signing 
of the Final Act. The report does not address pre-Helsinki 
developments except as necessary for reasons of continuity. 

-- Only criticisms which fall under the provisions of the 
Final Act and which relate to the 35 signatory countries have 
been considered. No matter how we may feel personally about 
other alleged injustices, the mandate of the Corrmission is 
restricted solely to monitoring implementation of the Helsinki 
accords. At the same time, we have adopted a liberal interpre¬ 
tation of the language of the Final Act and have included some 
subjects which arguably could be excluded. By the same token, 
certain areas of criticism have been excluded as not falling 
under the terms of the Final Act. For example, the report does 
not address the problems of foreign migrant workers because 
the Final Act clearly refers to such workers only in the context 
of movements between CSCE countries in Europe. Likewise, the 
difficult and growing problem of illegal aliens in the U.S. is 
not treated because there is no apparent basis for it in the 
Final Act. The Conrmission maintains an open mind on these ques¬ 
tions and is prepared to revise its views on the basis of 
convincing evidence to the contrary. 

-- In evaluating U.S. performance, the report operates 
on the principle that the Final Act does not demand or expect 
instantaneous compliance with every provision. Instead, the 
participating countries regard compliance as a long-term process 
of gradual improvement. Consequently, trends toward greater 
or less compliance are more important than a given situation 
in a particular area. 

-- In evaluating U.S. implementation we have relied to 
a great extent on information from federal agencies whose 
responsibilities generally or specifically related to Final 
Act comp 1ianee. 

-- The report focuses on U.S. compliance efforts and 
deliberately avoids comparisons with other CSCE states except 
in a few instances to provide perspective. 

-- The report treats the U.S. as responsible for compliance 
with United Nations human rights covenants referred to in the 
Final Act even though the U.S. has signed but not ratified these 
covenants and therefore is not legally bound by them. 


5 



-- Because problems faced by minority groups such as blacks 
and Hispanics occur in a wide range of areas, questions raised 
about them are covered in a number of sections of the report. 
These include political participation, persons in confinement, 
health, education, employment and housing. 

-- American Indians have been discussed separately for 
two reasons. First, the Commission received a great deal of 
criticism from foreign sources about the status of Indians 
in the United States. Second, while Indians are a racial 
minority, Indian tribes are also recognized in the U.S. 
Constitution as distinct political entities. 

-- The report also contains a separate section on women 
because they represent a majority of the U.S. population -- 
51.3 percent -- yet still have not been accorded many of the 
same rights which men have long taken for granted. 

-- Limited time and resources have obliged the Commission 
to concentrate primarily on criticisms which were brought to 
its attention. 

Purposes of the Report 

The Commission has three main purposes in preparing this 
report. First, it hopes to demonstrate the good faith of the 
U.S. in assessing its Helsinki implementation record in light of 
criticisms from other CSCE countries and domestic critics. 

Second, the Commission hopes to stimulate honest implementa¬ 
tion evaluations by other CSCE states and thus to lay the 
groundwork for real progress prior to the next review meeting 
at Madrid in 1980. Finally, the Commission hopes to encourage 
improved compliance by the United States. Although the Commis¬ 
sion agrees with President Carter that the U.S. record is very 
good, additional discussion and interaction between responsible 
government agencies and interested private organizations is a 
necessary prerequisite to greater progress. 

Judging from the past record, we fully expect that parts of 
this report will be used by certain other CSCE participants 
to criticize and attack the United States in an effort to divert 
attention from or avoid discussion of their own lack of com¬ 
pliance. This has been the standard technique employed by 
certain countries in their propaganda over the years. The 
Commission is prepared to accept this tactic. We believe that 
the openness of U.S. society, as exemplified by this report, 
is a strength which transcends any possible advantage which 
others may hope to gain from it. 


6 



Finally, the Commission wishes to express appreciation 
to all who cooperated in the preparation of this report. 
Monitoring U.S. compliance with the Helsinki Final Act will 
be a continuing Commission priority. 

The Commission welcomes comments and suggestions on the 
repor t. 


7 


CHAPTER TWO 


SECURITY IN EUROPE 
INTRODUCTION - BASKET I 


The first section or "Basket" of the Helsinki Final Act, 
entitled "Questions Relating to Security in Europe," includes 
a Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations Between Partici¬ 
pating States. A document on confidence building measures 
enumerates ways to strengthen confidence among the states and 
thus contribute to increasing stability and security in Europe. 

The 10 Principles in the declaration are general restate¬ 
ments of accepted, normal international behavior, consistent 
with international law. The first six Principles in particular 
-- Sovereign Equality, Refraining from the Threat or Use of 
Force, Inviolability of Frontiers, Territorial Integrity of 
States, Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, and Non-Intervention 
in Internal Affairs -- are straightforward reaffirmations of 
what have long been accepted norms of international relations. 
Other principles -- notably Principle VII, Human Rights and 
Fundamental Freedoms; Principle VIII, Equal Rights and Self- 
Determination of Peoples; and Principle IX, Cooperation Among 
States -- are more complex. Unlike the others, these principles 
require a country to take positive, specific actions to bring 
about their implementation. 

It has been U.S. policy to insist on the primary and equal 
significance of all the Principles, as set forth in the Final 
Act, and to resist any effort to invest the Principles with 
special political importance or to set them above the rest of 
the Final Act. The U. S. and the nations of Western Europe 
have also placed great stress on the section of the preamble 
to the Declaration of Principles which underlines that the 10 
Principles guiding relations among states should be applied 
equally to all participating states without regard to their 
political, economic or social systems, or their size, geograph¬ 
ical location or level of economic development. In other words, 
the U.S. Government has viewed the Declaration of Principles 
as a code of conduct guiding relations with all the partici¬ 
pating states, not simply with friends and allies. 

From the beginning, the Soviet Union and the East European 
states have interpreted and emphasized the Principles different¬ 
ly from the West. The entire Declaration, particularly its 
first four Principles, has been portrayed by the Soviets as 
the focal point of the entire Final Act, amounting in their 
view to a quasi-peace treaty ratifying post-World War II borders 
in Europe. 


8 





The general nature of most of these Principles makes it 
difficult to measure affirmative implementation action. Some 
Principles, notably numbers I, VI and X (Fulfillment in Good 
Faith of Obligations Under International Law), are implemented 
daily in the course of normal diplomatic dealings. Others, 
especially VII, basically reinforce already existing commitments 
to internationally accepted standards of behavior. Given the 
attention that CSCE states have devoted to Principle VII, it 
will receive special treatment in a separate section of this 
repor t. 


PRINZIPLES 

Principles I, II, III, IV, V and VI 

At various times, individual CSCE states have accused the 
U.S. of violating one or more of Principles I through VI. The 
fundamental theme running through the allegations is the conten¬ 
tion that the U.S., in one way or another, interfered in the 
political, economic and social systems of other countries 
including its allies. Often this criticism has focused on 
alleged efforts to prevent European states from evolving peace¬ 
fully from capitalism to socialism and especially to communism. 

In making these allegations, critics frequently charge 
the U.S. has violated some provision of the Final Act. This 
tactic appears to be a propaganda tool because, in many 
instances, the provisions of the Final Act are not involved 
at all. For example, recently the Soviet press seized on a 
study by the private Brookings Institute to allege that the 
U.S. had repeatedly violated Principle II by threatening to 
use force in its relations with other countries. Whatever the 
merit of these charges, the accusation conveniently ignored 
the fact that all the material cited in the Brookings study 
predates the signing of the Final Act. In a similar vein, the 
U.S. has been censured for threatening to use force against 
Uganda, Angola and Zaire, and for blatant interference in the 
post-Shah developments in Iran and Afghanistan. Again, the 
truth of these allegations aside, they clearly are not covered 
under the Final Act which is restricted to the territory of 
the 35 signatories. 

Other allegations of U.S. violation of one or more of 
Principles I through VI at least have a better foundation in 
the Final Act even if the allegations themselves are unsubstan¬ 
tiated. In this category are charges that the U.S. has inter¬ 
vened in the elections and other areas of internal affairs in 
two CSCE states, Portugal and Spain, in violation of Principle 
VI. The same accusation has been made with respect to Italy, 
where the "undisguised pressure" of the U.S. allegedly aims 
at keeping the Communis. Party out of power. What the authors 


9 




of these charges neglect to say is that none of the countries 
involved has itself alleged U.S. intervention in its internal 
affairs. Furthermore, there is no substantiated outside 
evidence offered to support such claims. 

In another area, some sources have accused the U.S. of 
pressuring other NATO governments to increase their budgets 
to help finance an early warning system for NATO, hardly a 
violation of the Final Act, even if true. Nor is the presence 
of U.S. bases on NATO soil a violation of the Helsinki Final 
Act, contrary to charges. 

Frequently, critics charge that the U.S. violated one 
of the Principles when dealing with the Soviet bloc. It is 
claimed that official U.S. refusal to recognize the incorpora¬ 
tion of the three Baltic States into the Soviet Union, and 
governmental sponsorship of a "captive nations week," violate 
the principle of territorial integrity of the Soviet Union. 

In continuing its policy of non-recognition of the forcible 
incorporation of the Baltic States, the United States has been 
guided by basic principles of international discourse which 
have become fundamental principles of the Final Act, particular¬ 
ly the territorial integrity of states, the sovereign equality 
and individuality of states, refraining from the threat or use 
of force, inviolability of frontiers and equal rights and self- 
determination of peoples. In particular, the final sentence 
of Principle IV, Territorial Integrity of States, which states 
that no occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal 
can and should be interpreted to refer not only to present or 
future occupations, but also to those which may have been taken 
in the past. President Ford emphasized this point at the time 
of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, when he declared that 
"the United States has never recognized the Soviet incorporation 
of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and is not doing so now. Our 
official policy of nonrecognition is not affected by the results 
of the European Security Conference." 

Repeated references are also made to the "aggressive 
designs" of the U.S. and NATO, with the maintenance of U.S. 
military bases and troops in Europe interpreted as an effort 
to pressure the Soviets and their allies by surrounding their 
borders with military forces. However, U.S. military presence 
in Western Europe is not specifically proscribed in the Final 
Act and is merely symptomatic of the unsettled status of East- 
West relations, a condition which hopefully will be resolved 
through further implementation of CSCE provisions. 

In signing the Final Act, the U.S. as well as all the other 
participating CSCE states reconfirmed political principles to 
guide efforts for a more secure world. As far as the Commission 


10 


has ascertained, U.S. relations with the other European signa¬ 
tory states have clearly reflected adherence to these princi¬ 
ples. There is no evidence to show that the U.S. has failed 
to respect the sovereignty of any other signatory state, nor 
has it been demonstrated that the U.S. in any way has threatened 
or used force against the frontiers or territorial integrity 
of any state in Europe since the signing of the Final Act. 

Allegations such as those made about U.S. military presence 
in, or pressure on, Western Europe are equally spurious and un¬ 
related to the Final Act. The U.S. is a member of a military 
alliance together with 13 nations in Europe plus Canada. Its 
cooperation with them in the military field is strictly governed 
not only by the rules of the alliance but also by a whole 
complex of bilateral treaties and agreements. Activities which 
take place, military or otherwise, on the territories of any 
NATO country occur with the full agreement and knowledge of 
all the countries concerned. 

Allegations of violations of Principle VI, Non-Intervention 
in Internal Affairs, have also been raised in another context. 
The Eastern countries have repeatedly cited this Principle when 
complaining about alleged Western, especially U.S., preoccupa¬ 
tion with the human rights provisions of the Final Act. Western 
concern with alleged Soviet and East European violations of the 
human rights Principle (VII) and the human contacts and informa¬ 
tion provisions of Basket III, it is argued, amounts to overt 
interference in Soviet and East European domestic affairs. 

It has long been the U.S. and We stern position that the 
language of Principle VI on non-intervention in internal affairs 
clearly is aimed at armed intervention and terrorism and does 
not preclude questions concerning the fulfillment of commitments 
by the signatory states. 

For the U.S., the experience since the signing of the Final 
Act has vividly demonstrated that respect for human rights and 
fundamental freedoms, set forth in Principle VII, has become 
a legitimate subject for diplomatic discourse. The Soviets 
themselves, at the CSCE Belgrade review meeting, gave at least 
tacit support for this idea by raising questions about alleged 
political prisoners in the U.S. Furthermore, it is generally 
accepted that human rights, embodied in such documents as the 
United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights and the Final Act, have become an accepted topic of 
international concern. Consequently, there is a broad and 
growing international consensus that a state now has a general 
right to raise questions about the fulfillment by another state 
of international commitments which both have undertaken. 


Principle V 


Peaceful Settlement of Disputes 

Principle V, while directly linked in nature and intent 
with the first four Principles, deserves separate attention 
for it was the subject of a special meeting of experts, held 
in Montreux, Switzerland, from October 31 through December 11, 
1978. The meeting, mandated by the Belgrade conference and 
the Final Act, was organized to pursue the examination and 
elaboration of a method for peaceful settlement of disputes. 

The Montreux meeting marked the continuation of an effort begun 
in the Basket I Committee during the Geneva phase of the CSCE 
negotiations. While no substantive progress towards a peaceful 
settlement scheme was made at Madrid, participating states were 
able to agree to a statement of principles setting forth the 
basis of a common approach to the problem. Negotiators also 
recommended to their governments that they consider at the 
Madrid review meeting the possibility of convening another 
meeting of experts to continue work on the subject. 

The U.S. and the other Western nations have traditionally 
subscribed to the tenet that states should use all means at 
their disposal, including negotiations, inquiry, mediation, 
conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement to resolve 
their disputes by peaceful means. At the Montreux meeting, 
the U.S. strongly supported this approach to peaceful settle¬ 
ment. Even though the narrower, more restrictive views of 
certain other CSCE states limited the progress achieved, the 
prospects for development of a broad, generally-accepted method 
are still alive. 

Principle VIII 


Equal Rights and Self-Determination of Peoples 

The United States was founded on the principle of self- 
determination of peoples. As a nation of immigrants, most of 
its population is derived from the European backgrounds of most 
of the other participating states. Many Americans also came 
from African and Asian backgrounds. These diverse peoples and 
their descendants today are able to maintain their links with 
their places of origin as well as to express their ethnic 
interests and ethnic awareness through a wide variety of asso¬ 
ciations and organizations throughout the U.S. 

The U.S. has not, however, been immune to criticisms 
related to Principle VIII. These relate primarily to the status 
of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and of the United Nations 
strategic trust known as the Trust Territory of the Pacific 
Islands (Micronesia) over which the United States has adminis¬ 
tering authority. In international forums, critics have alleged 


12 




that the U.S. has refused to permit the peoples of the Common¬ 
wealth and the Trust Territory to exercise their rights of self- 
determination to become independent. The wording of the Inter¬ 
national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights clearly states 
that people may be considered to be self-determining if they 
have the right to determine freely their political status and 
to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural develop¬ 
ment. According to this definition, independence is consistent 
with the concept of self-government, but is not the only form 
that self-government may take. The evidence shows that the 
majority of the people living in Puerto Rico and Micronesia 
do not seek independence. Instead, they have opted for alterna¬ 
tive forms of self-government -- namely, commonwealth and free 
association status. 

Puerto Rico: The Commonwealth 

Puerto Rico's status has become a problem. It has existed 
as a U.S. commonwealth since 1952, an arrangement which at the 
time was overwhelmingly accepted by the people of that island. 
Under this arrangement, Puerto Ricans elect their own government 
but do not vote for the President, Vice-President or Members 
of Congress, nor do they pay federal income taxes. A 1953 U.N. 
resolution confirmed this status, cone 1uding that Puerto Rico 
was self-governing, and that the U.S. would no longer have to 
make reports on the island to the U.N. Committee on Information 
from Non-Se1f-Governing Territories. The commonwealth system, 
as adopted, represented a middle ground between statehood and 
independence. From the beginning, however, it was apparent 
that the formula had built-in limitations, resulting from 
uncertainty as to the degree of actual autonomy and the precise 
areas of Puerto Rican jurisdiction. 

A joint U.S.-Puerto Rico Status Commission created in 1964 
to deal with the continuing problem of status recommended a 
plebiscite on the question in 1967. Voters for commonwealth 
status received 60 percent of the vote and statehood received 
38.9 percent. Those desiring independence totaled less than 
1 percent. Although Puerto Ricans indicated an overwhelming 
preference for continued commonwealth status, it should be noted 
that only 65.9 percent of the electorate on this occasion voted 
as compared to a more usual 80 percent turnout. 

Since 1967, no further referendum has been held. In the 
meantime, the status of Puerto Rico has become a matter of con¬ 
cern to many former colonies and certain other countries, which 
have alleged that Puerto Rico, despite its commonwealth status, 
remains, in fact, a colony of the U.S. For more than a decade, 
efforts have been made in the U.N. Decolonization Committee 
to add Puerto Rico to the list of territories which "have still 
not obtained their independence." 


13 


Partially in an effort to respond to this colonialism 
charge, President Gerald R. Ford, in December of 1976, sug¬ 
gested that the possibility of statehood should be reconsider¬ 
ed. This suggestion contributed to the already heated debate 
between those advocating continuing conmnonwea1th status and 
those proposing statehood. Additionally, in the past few years 
there has been increased support by Puerto Ricans for either 
statehood or independence. Pro-statehood sentiment in general 
seems to be on the rise on the island as the best way to deal 
with growing economic and political difficulties. 

Given the divisions in Puerto Rican sentiment, President 
Carter, in July of 1978, stressed his support for Puerto Rican 
self-determination. He pledged that whatever status Puerto 
Ricans choose, "it will be yours." To give impetus to the drive 
for self-determination, a new plebiscite is scheduled for 1981 
in which the choices will include statehood, modified common¬ 
wealth status or independence. 

Whatever the outcome of the status debate, the United 
States and Puerto Rico will likely remain closely connected. 
While Puerto Rico has remained close to its Latin American 
roots, it has become heavily intertwined with U.S. society 
over the past 75 years. An estimated two million people born 
in Puerto Rico or of Puerto Rican descent live in the 50 states 
and more than a million American citizens, both Puerto Rican 
and non-Puerto Rican, travel between the island and the mainland 
each year. Trade between the mainland and Puerto Rico now equals 
more than $5.6 billion a year. To help Puerto Rico overcome 
its present economic difficulties, President Carter has recently 
appointed an interagency task force, headed by the Secretary 
of Commerce, to examine ways to spur economic recovery. In 
announcing the Committee, the President emphasized that it will 
not deal with the status question. This will remain an issue 
for the Puerto Rican people themselves to resolve. 

Micronesia: The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands 

The U.S. administration of the U.N. stragetic trust, the 
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Micronesia) -- the only 
remaining trusteeship of the 11 originally created by the U.N. 

-- is covered in the Helsinki Final Act under Principle VIII 
on Equal Rights and Self-Determination of Peoples, and Principle 
X on Fulfillment in Good Faith of Obligations Under Inter¬ 
national Law. 

Administering authority over the Trust Territory -- 
consisting of three major archipelagoes: the Marianas, the 
Marshalls and the Carolines -- was put in U.S. hands in 1947 
following World War II by means of a Trusteeship Agreement with 
the United Nations. The Trusteeship Agreement with the United 
States sets forth four major goals for the U.S. to pursue in 


14 


Micronesia: (1) to foster the development of political institu¬ 
tions in the Territory "toward self-government or independence 
as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances...and the 
freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned..."; (2) to 
promote the economic advancement and self-sufficiency of the 
inhabitants; (3) to promote the social advancement of the inhab¬ 
itants and, to this end, protect their rights and fundamental 
freedoms; and (4) to promote their educational advancement. 

The U.S. has stated its intention to terminate its trustee¬ 
ship authority over the Territory by 1981 -- a policy that has 
been endorsed by the U.N. Trusteeship Council. Before U.S. 
administrative authority over the islands can be ended, however, 
the Micronesian people themselves must freely determine their 
political status. 

Critics have questioned whether or not the U.S. has 
sufficiently prepared the approximately 110,000 inhabitants for 
self-government in the Post-Trus teeship period. 

Present Conditions in the Trust Territory 

In May of 1979, the U.N. Trusteeship Council appointed 
a drafting corrmittee to prepare a report on conditions in the 
Trust Territory for the period June 1978 to June 1979. On June 
13, 1979, the Council adopted, with some oral amendments, the 
report of the drafting committee. The report presented a 
generally favorable assessment of U.S. administration in 
Micronesia for that time period, but also indicated areas where 
improvements are needed. 

On the negative side, the Trusteeship Council noted that 
Micronesia's economy does not provide sufficient funds to meet 
its administrative and social expenditures, creating an economic 
dependency on the U.S. At the same time, the Council cited 
various efforts underway to improve the viability of the Terri¬ 
tory's economy through tariff preferences, multi-year develop¬ 
ment plans, capital improvement projects, assistance from inter¬ 
national institutions and other countries, exploitation, manage¬ 
ment and conservation of island resources, expansion of agricul¬ 
tural and livestock production; and expansion of tourism. The 
Council found that transport and conrmun i cat i ons continued to be 
a serious problem, but acknowledged that U.S. performance has 
improved in this sphere. 

The Trusteeship Council noted that progress has been made 
in strengthening the health and hospital infrastructure in 


13 


Micronesia. The Council referred to th^ welfare of the 
displaced people of Bikini and Enewetak atolls and 2 of the 
radiation fallout victims from Rongelap and Utirik. The Coun¬ 
cil acknowledged that the U.S. has recognized its humanitarian 
obligation to these people and has provided them with financial 
compensation for the loss of property, regular medical 
examinations and treatment for the radiation victims. 

A continued concern for the Council has been unemployment 
and the imbalance between wage-earners employed in the public 
sector and those employed in the private sector. The Council 
was satisfied with provisions made by the U.S. Government for 
housing development, rent subsidies for lower income families 
and home ownership loans. The Council reaffirmed its satisfac¬ 
tion with the excellent record of the U.S. administering 
authority in the field of education and noted that there is 
an increasing number of post-graduate students in the Territory, 
that loans and grants for higher education are being made 
available by the U.S. Government and international institutions, 
and that grammar textbooks and dictionaries have been completed 
in seven Micronesian languages. 


1. In 1946, the population of the Marshallese islands of Bikini 
and Enewetak were evacuated to other atolls so that the 
U.S. Government could conduct atomic bomb tests in the area. 

After several radiological surveys were taken in 1966 and 
1967, the U.S. Government determined that once clean-up and 
rehabilitation procedures were completed, the Bikinians 
would be able to return to their home atolls. The rehabili¬ 
tation and resettlement program was begun in 1970 and was to 
be implemented in increments over a seven-year period. By 
1977, 145 Bikinians had returned to take up settlement in 

advance of the main group of their fellow evacuees. Regret¬ 
tably, continuously monitored radiation indicators began to 
show higher than expected levels of radiation exposure of 
the Bikinians. Consequently, in late 1978, those who re¬ 
turned had to be reevacuated from the island. The people of 
Bikini have received several ex gratia payments totalling 
six million dollars for the use of their island. The U.S. 
has pledged to find acceptable relocation sites for them 
since Bikini will not be usable for agriculture or habita¬ 
tion for another 30 to 40 years. The Bikinians who were 
reevacuated will periodically be monitored to detect their 
body content of radioactivity. 

The people of Enewetak will be returning to their island 
in the spring of 1980, once precautions have been taken to 
minimize exposure to radiation. They have received ex 
gratia payments to compensate them for the use of the - 
proper t y. 

2. In 1954, 86 Marshallese from Rongelap and 158 from Utirik 
were accidentally exposed to radiation fallout. 


16 







Additionally, the Council mentioned that legislation (H.R. 
3756, Section 102) authorizing 50 percent payment by the U.S. on 
an ex gratia basis of the outstanding war claims without making 
the payment contingent on a comparable gesture by the Japanese 
Government, was passed by the House and is now before the Senate 
for consideration. It is reemphasized that these claims are ex 
gratia, for under the principles of international law, such 
claims are not compensable on purely legal grounds. 

Planning for the Post-Trusteeship Period 

In advance of the trusteeship termination, constitutions 
have been adopted by the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated 
States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, and one is in 
the process of being adopted by Palau. The constitutions are 
to be put into practice by newly-elected governments. Until 
such time as the trusteeship has ended, these transitional 
governments will have control of the day-to-day administration 
of the islands. Their jurisdiction wi11 be limited only by 
the requirements of the U.N. Charter, the Trusteeship Agreement 
and other U.S. treaties, laws and regulations applicable to 
the Trust Territory, pursuant to the Trusteeship Agreement. 

The U.S. has been criticized by some Mi cronesians, and 
a CSCE member of the Trusteeship Council, for politically frag¬ 
menting the Micronesian Islands in contravention of the U.N.'s 
policy of favoring preservation of the territorial integrity 
of all trust and non-se1f-governing territories during the 
course of decolonization. 

The criticism is based on these facts: 

(1) The Northern Mariana Islands had adopted their own 
constitution in January of 1978. Palau, the Marshall Islands 
and the Federated States of Micronesia (the districts of Kosrae, 
Yap, Ponape and Truk) emerged as separate political entities 
from the U.N.-observed constitutional referendum of July 12, 

1978 . 


(2) The Northern Mariana Islands have opted for Common¬ 
wealth status in political association with the U.S. once the 
Trusteeship Period has ended, whereas the other islands have 
chosen the status of "free association." 

Critics assert that these diverse political arrangements 
were caused by the uneven development policy that the U.S. 
pursued in Micronesia for stategic reasons. However, the U.S. 
Government claims -- and the Trusteeship Council agrees -- that 
it has followed a policy designed to foster unity among all 
the districts of the Territory during the Post-Trusteeship 
period. The Trus teeship Counci1 is satisfied that the peoples 
of the islands were freely exercising their right to determine 


17 




for themselves their internal and external forms of government 
when they created these separate governments and plans for 
different post-trusteeship relationships with the U.S. 

In April of 1978, at Hilo, Hawaii, a statement of eight 
agreed principles was signed by the political status commissions 
of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands 
and Palau. The statement established the conceptual foundation 
upon which a free association relationship with the U.S. in 
the Post-Trus teeship period is to be built. The final agreement 
on free association will be put to a U.N.-observed plebiscite. 
Many practical questions need to be answered before the free 
association agreement can be finalized. The Trusteeship Council 
holds the view, however, that free association is a governmental 
option that is not incompatible with the Trusteeship Agreement, 
provided that the populations concerned have freely accepted 
i t. 


The point at which the Security Council should be brought 
into the termination process of U.S. trusteeship over the 
Territory is a subject of some controversy. Micronesian 
spokesmen and a CSCE member of the Trusteeship Council have 
argued that the Security Council should be consulted during 
the above-mentioned preparatory stages in the termination 
process so that, prior to termination, it can review the 
separation of the Northern Mariana Islands, the emergence of 
the three different governments for the other Micronesian 
districts and other related political developments. 

On this point, the U.N. Charter provides that: 

"All functions of the United Nations 
relating to strategic areas, including the 
approval of the terms of the trusteeship 
agreements and of their alteration or amend¬ 
ment, should be exercised by the Security 
Counci1." 

In addition, the Charter states that: 

"The Security Council shall, subject to the 
provisions of the trusteeship agreements and 
without prejudice to security consideration, 
avail itself of the assistance of the Trustee¬ 
ship Council to perform those functions of the 
United Nations under the trusteeship system 
relating to political, economic, social and 
educational matters in the strategic areas." 

Shortly after the Security Council gave the U.S. the task 
of administering the strategic trust territory of Micronesia, it 


18 


delegated to the Trusteeship Council all functions except those 
relating to security and any future alterations of the Trustee- 
ship Agreement. 

The U.S. has reported on preparations being made for 
termination of the Trusteeship to the Trusteeship Council, 
which, in turn, has been reporting to the Security Council. 
Moreover, the U.S. has stated its intention to take up, at the 
appropriate time, the matter of termination with the Trusteeship 
Council and the Security Council. 

Assessment of U.S. Compliance 

After weighing the criticisms of U.S. administration of 
Micronesia against the significant progress that has been made, 
the Commission concludes that the U.S. stands in essential com¬ 
pliance with the CSCE Final Act regarding the Trust Territory 
of the Pacific Islands. 

Clearly the U.S. has made progress in discharging its 
obligations toward Micronesia, but additional steps will be 
taken to ready the islands to meet the challenge of self- 
government in 1981. The establishment of a Congressional Sub¬ 
committee on Pacific Affairs will help to focus attention on 
the special needs of Micronesians during the present time of 
transition and in the Post-Trusteeship period. The Covenant 
on Commonwealth with the Northern Mariana Islands and the Hilo 
Agreement with the other Micronesian governmental entities 
provide that the U.S. moral commitments to the islands will 
not be terminated along with the trusteeship in 1981. The 
approaching termination date will not cause any relaxation in 
the implementation of extensive capital development projects 
in the Territory; rather, the next two years should witness 
an intensification of U.S. efforts to bring the Territory 
nearer to the point of self-sufficiency by the date of 
te rmi nation. 

Principle IX 


Cooperation Among States 

This far-reaching Principle calls upon the participating 
states to endeavor "to promote mutual understanding and 
confidence, friendly and good-neighborly relations among them¬ 
selves..." The Principle is directly related to specific 
provisions in Baskets II and III in that it also calls upon 
CSCE nations to improve the well-being of their peoples by 
increasing mutual knowledge and progress in the economic, 
scientific, technological, social, cultural and humanitarian 
fields. 


19 



A significant act consistent with the spirit of Principle 
IX took place in January of 1978 when the United States formally 
returned to Hungary the historic crown of St. Stephen which had 
been passed to the U.S. for custody during the closing months 
of World War II. The return of this crown, the symbol of the 
Hungarian nation for centuries, undoubtedly helped contribute 
to the development of normal and friendly relations between 
the U.S. and Hungary. 

Many other examples of concrete cooperation and exchange 
between the U.S. and other signatory states, in specific fields 
such as science, education and culture, are contained elsewhere 
in this study. In addition, high level political contacts with 
each of the participating states has continued as a normal 
aspect of international diplomacy. U.S. Congressional delega¬ 
tions in the past year have visited numerous signatories. Joint 
delegations, composed of members of the State Department and 
the CSCE Commission staff, have visited Poland, Bulgaria, the 
German Democratic Republic, Romania, Hungary, Finland, 
Yugoslavia, Austria, Spain and Sweden, for wide-ranging 
bilateral discussions on CSCE implementation. 

Principle IX also confirms that "governments, institutions, 
organizations and persons have a relevant and positive role 
to play" in contributing towards the goals of the Final Act. 

In the U.S., as in other participating states, groups of private 
citizens have taken upon themselves the task of monitoring the 
compliance of their governments with the provisions of the Final 
Act. Unlike the situation in some countries where members of 
these groups have been persecuted and imprisoned, in the U.S. 
they have come to play an increasingly important and active 
role in stimulating public and governmental awareness of short¬ 
comings in the U.S. implementation record. 

Two groups in particular have recently become very active 
in calling attention to human rights shortcomings in the U.S. 

The U.S. Citizen's Committee to Monitor the Helsinki Accords, 
based in New York, consists of a board of 4 6 prominent citizens 
from a wide variety of professions and backgrounds. Like the 
Commission, this organization seeks to monitor compliance in 
all the signatory states, and devotes particular attention to 
human rights concerns. It has a close working relationship 
with a number of representative civil rights organizations. 

The Washington Helsinki Watch Committee for the U.S., on 
the other hand, serves as an umbrella organization for a wide 
assortment of constituent human rights-re1 ated groups, including 
the National Urban League, the Indian Law Resource Center, the 
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Alien Rights 
Project, the Movement for Economic Justice, Micronesia Legal 


20 


Services and the AELU National Prison Project. It appears that 
this group will focus almost exclusively on the U.S. compliance 
record, especially in the human rights area. 

These groups were given the opportunity to testify during 
the Commission's three days of hearings on domestic compliance 
in April of 1979, and were invited to submit reports which have 
been taken into consideration in the formulation of this study. 
The Commission will continue to listen to these citizens' groups 
and to offer them a public platform to voice their concerns 
about U.S. compliance with the Final Act. The right of indivi¬ 
dual citizens to speak their minds freely and without fear of 
recrimination offers the best guarantee that CSCE governments 
will make a maximum effort to live up to their Helsinki commit¬ 
ments. To silence these voices is to commit the gravest 
violation of all. 

Principle X 


Fulfillment in Good Faith of Obligations Under 

International Law 

Principle X obligates the participating states to fulfill 
in good faith their obligations under international law, while 
at the same time paying due regard to and implementing the 
provisions of the Final Act. The U.S. has been criticized for 
two actions which relate to this Principle: the November of 
1977 decision to withdraw from the International Labor Organiza¬ 
tion (ILO) and the September of 1978 action by Congress which 
placed restrictions on funds appropriated for U.S.-assessed 
contributions to U.N. agencies, prohibiting their use for 
technical assistance activities. 

The decision to withdraw from the ILO, while it has drawn 
criticism from various quarters, in no way violated obligations 
under international law and thus cannot be considered a viola¬ 
tion of the Final Act. A letter from then Secretary of State 
Henry Kissinger to the director of the ILO was sent in November 
of 19 75 pursuant to Article I, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution 
of the ILO which says that a member may withdraw provided that 
a notice of intention to withdraw has been given two years 
earlier, and that all financial obligations have been met. 

In his letter, Secretary Kissinger elaborated the reasons which 
motivated the decision to withdraw: the erosion of tripartite 
representation within the organization (consisting of represen¬ 
tatives of workers, employers and governments) in favor of the 
domination of governments; selective concern for human rights 
in some member states and not others; lack of objectivity in 
the examination of alleged violations of human rights; adoption 
of resolutions condemning particular member states in disregard 


21 



for established procedures; and finally the increasing politici 
zation of the ILO, leading to involvement in political issues 
beyond the competence and mandate of the organization. 

U.S. withdrawal from the ILO took place in November of 
1977, two years after the required notification by Secretary 
Kissinger. At the time, President Carter reiterated that the 
"U.S. remains ready to return whenever the ILO is true again 
to its proper principles and procedures." A cabinet- 1eve1 
committee, now headed by Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall, 
continues to follow ILO developments closely. The last 
cabinetlevel committee meeting announced in April of 1979 that 
favorable developments at the June annual ILO meeting could 
lead to U.S. reconsideration of its withdrawal. 

Another criticism which has been leveled at the U.S. in 
this regard is that it has ratified only seven of the 153 ILO 
conventions. These conventions deal with various aspects of 
labor management problems either setting forth general responsi 
bilities in specific areas or calling upon member states to 
pass certain laws and regulations establishing basic standards 
of conduct. 

Although it emphatically does not constitute a violation 
of the Final Act, it is true that the U.S. has only ratified 
seven ILO conventions. Furthermore, other aspects of the 
problem need to be considered. In many cases, the U.S. federal 
system makes it difficult to ratify these conventions, since 
authority in many labor management areas in the U.S. is left 
to the states. Federal action is not permitted in these areas. 
Recently, consideration is being given to whether the U.S. 
should sign other ILO conventions, if and when conditions are 
ripe for re-entry into the ILO. 

In passing the State Department’s appropriation for Fiscal 
Year 1979, Congress adopted an amendment deleting from the 
President's budget a requested 27.7 million dollars -- the 
approximate U.S. share of U.N. technical assistance activities 
financed by assessed contributions. The amendment also speci¬ 
fied that, of the total funds appropriated, "no part may be 
made available for the furnishing of technical assistance by 
the U.N. or any of its specialized agencies." 

In signing the 1979 State Department appropriation bill, 
President Carter indicated his strong opposition to the restric 
tive amendments. He said the law would impair the financial 
and political viability of the U.N. agencies and "is contrary 
to the policy of collective financial responsibility of the 


22 


United Nations system." He said he would recommend to Congress 
that the prohibitory language be removed and that the deleted 
funds be restored "so this Government can meet its clear obliga¬ 
tions under the United Nations Charter and related treaties." 

The restricttions were rescinded in 1979 by the amendment 
proposed by Senator Claiborne Pell to Congress' 1980 State 
Department appropriations bill. In passing this bill, Congress 
thereby insured that the U.S. would again meet all of its 
financial obligations to the United Nations and* be in full 
compliance with the provisions of Principle X. 

MILITARY SECURITY 


Introduction 


The second half of Basket I of the Final Act deals with 
the military aspects of security, including specific but limited 
provisions designed to give practical meaning to the broad idea 
of security in Europe. The section consists of two main parts, 
one labeled confidence-bui1ding measures (CBMs), commits CSCE 
states to certain specific mi 1itary-re1ated actions in Europe. 
The other is a general pledge to further disarmament goals. 

The Western countries, including the U.S., have believed 
from the outset of CSCE that precise if limited confidence¬ 
building measures, especially advance notification of military 
maneuvers and exchange of observers, can be the basis for estab¬ 
lishing meaningful security in Europe. For this reason, it 
has been a fundamental policy of all NATO countries to fulfill 
both the letter and the spirit of the Final Act's CBM provi¬ 
sions. While all CSCE states have lived up to their minimal 
commitments in this area, the NATO countries have volunteered 
in many instances to go beyond this, and have taken the discre¬ 
tionary steps encouraged by the Final Act. 

While no part of the Final Act is legally binding and CBMs 
are explicitly "voluntary," the political commitment contained 
in them is clear. Furthermore, the implementation record, which 
involves specific events and numbers, lends itself to objective 
assessment. From this point of view, the U.S. record of imple¬ 
mentation of the CBM provisions of the Final Act is one of full 
comp 1iance. 

Notification of Major Maneuvers 

Since the signing of the Final Act, the United States has 
been involved in 12 major military maneuvers which are covered 
under the rubric of CBMs. All were duly notified in conformity 
with the Final Act, that is, at least 21 days in advance of 
the maneuver. Of these, seven were exercises in which the U.S. 


23 





was the sponsor, and therefore, the notifying country, and six 
were exercises in which the U.S. participated and provided 
parallel notification. In all cases, all CSCE participants 
were notified of the existence of the exercises. Following 
is a list of major maneuvers in Europe of more than 25,000 men 
in which the U.S. has taken part since the signing of the Final 
Act : 

-- "Grosse Rochade," notified Aug. 22, 1975, by the 

FRG and the U.S. A 68,000-man exercise with the 
participation of Canadian and French forces which took place 
in Bavaria Sept. 15-19, 1975. 

-- "Certain Trek," notified Sept. 10, 1975, by the 

FRG, with the U.S. sponsoring. A 57,000-man exercise with 
participation of French and Canadian elements in Bavaria 
Oct. 14-23, 1975. 

-- "Grosser Baer," notified Aug. 16, 1976, by the 

FRG. A 50,000-man exercise with the participation of U.S., 
British and Dutch forces which took place in the FRG Sept. 

6-10, 1976. 

-- "Gordian Shield," notified Aug. 16, 1976, by the 

U.S. A 30,000-man exercise with participation of West 
German and Belgian forces in the FRG Sept. 7-11, 1976. 

-- "Lares Teams," notified Aug. 23, 1976, by the 

U.S. A 44,000-man exercise with participation of West 
German and Canadian forces in the FRG Sept. 13-17, 1976. 

-- "Carbon Edge," notified Aug. 23, 1977, by the 

U.S. and the FRG with the U.S. sponsoring. A 59,000-man 
maneuver held September 13-23 in Bavaria and 
Baden-Wurtemberg with the participation of Belgian, 

Canadian, Dutch and British forces. The U.S. invited 
obser vers. 

-- "Standhafte Scha11en," notified Aug. 22, 1 978, 

by the FRG. A 38,000-man maneuver held in Hesse Sept. 

12-17, 1977, in conjunction with U.S. troops. 

-- "Blaue Donau," notified Aug. 24, 1978, by the FRG. 

A 46,000-man maneuver in which the U.S. participated, held 
Sept. 17-21 in the Southern part of the FRG. 

-- "Certain Shield," notified Aug. 25, 1978. A 

56,000-man maneuver with participation of four other allies, 
held Sept. 18-28 in the central part of the FRG. 

-- "Saxon Drive," notified by the Netherlands Aug. 

25, 1978. A 32,500-man maneuver with the participation 

of the U.S., held Sept. 18-29 in Hannover and Breven 
in the FRG. 


Ti A listing of those maneuvers in which the U.S. was the 
sponsoring country appears in Appendix I, Chart 1. 


24 




-- "Bold Guard," notified by the FRG Aug. 20, 1978. 

A 65,000-man maneuver with the participation of the U.S. and 
two other allies, held Sept. 19-22 in the northern part 
of the FRG. 

-- "Certain Sentinel," sponsored by the U.S. and 
held Jan. 30-Feb. 6, 1979, with the participation of 
Canadian, FRG, Luxembourg, Netherlands and U.K. troops in 
the North Baden-Wurtemburg, West Bavaria area of the FRG. 

Prior Notification of Other Military Maneuvers 


Notification of maneuvers involving fewer than 25,000 men 
is optional but encouraged by the language of the Final Act: 
"the participating states...may also notify smaller scale mili¬ 
tary maneuvers to other participating states..." The U.S. has 
sponsored one notified smaller maneuver and has participated 
in 10 others. These include: 

-- "Deep Express," notified August of 1975 by Turkey 
and the U.K. An 18,000-man exercise with the participation 
of the U.S., FRG and Italian forces which took place in 
the Aegean Sea and Turkish Trace Sept. 12-28, 1975. 

-- "Atlas Express," notified by Norway in February of 

1976. A 17,000-man exercise with the participation of the 
Allied Command Europe Mobile Force which took place Feb. 

26-Mar. 22, 1976. 

-- "Teamwork-76," notified by Norway in September of 

1976. A 15,000-man exercise with the participation of the 
U.S., U.K. and Dutch forces which took place Sept. 22-24, 

1 976. 

-- "Bonded Item," notified by Denmark Sept. 20, 1976. 

A 10,000-man exercise with the participation of FRG and 
U.S. forces which took place in the FRG and Denmark Oct. 

11-21, 1976. 

-- "Spearpoint," notified by the United Kingdom in 
October of 1976. An 18,000-man exercise with the 
participation of U.S. and Dutch troops which took place 
Nov. 8-12, 1976. 

-- "Certain Fighter," notified by the U.S. April 7, 

1977. A field exercise involving 24,000 U.S. personnel 

which took place May 1-8, 1977, in Hesse in the FRG. 

-- "Arrow Express," notified by Denmark Aug. 28, 

1977. An air/ground maneuver involving 16,000 men with 

participation of the U.S. and seven other allies, which 
took place Sept. 19-23, 1977, in Denmark. 

-- "Blue Fox," notified by Belgium Aug. 22, 1977. 

A 24,000-man maneuver which was held Sept. 12-23 in 
Germany with the participation of the U.S. and FRG. 

-- "Arctic Express," notified by Norway Jan. 30, 

1978. A maneuver involving 15,300 men with air and naval 


25 



support, with the participation of the U.S. and four other 
ailies, which took place March 1-6 in the Troms region of 
northern Norway. 

-- "Black Bear," notified by Norway, involving 8,200 
ground and air personnel, which took place Sept. 22-26, 

1978. Military personnel from the U.S., the Netherlands 
and the United Kingdom also participated. 

-- "Cold Winter," notified by Norway, a 10,000-man 
maneuver involving ground and air troops which took place 
March 17-22, 1979, with participation of forces from the 

U.S., Canada, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. 

Exchange of Observers 

The Final Act does not require that observers be invited 
to every maneuver for which notification is given and there 
is no requirement that all CSCE signatories be included when 
invitations are extended. In general, however, NATO and other 
Western states have been more inclined than other CSCE states 
to invite observers more frequently and to extend their invita¬ 
tions to a larger number of countries. 

The U.S. has thus far sponsored one minor and seven major 
maneuvers since the signing of the Final Act. In six instances 
of U.S.-sponsored exercises, the country which invited observers 
was not the U.S. but another nation in the NATO alliance. 
Observers from all CSCE nations were invited to five of these 
six maneuvers. The two maneuvers to which the U.S. invited 
observers were "Carbon Edge," in September of 1977, and "Certain 
Shield," in September of 1978. Representatives of all the CSCE 
states were invited. In all cases, the U.S. provided a broad 
range of opportunity for observers from the Warsaw Pact and 
neutral and non-aligned nations to witness and understand the 
exercises. They were provided with both fixed and mobile 
observation posts, binoculars, escorts, means of transportation, 
telephone liaison with their embassies, visits to the exercise 
area, contact with command posts and opportunities to ask 
questions. 

Even when observers from all CSCE states are not invited 
to NATO-sponsored maneuvers, invitations are usually extended 
to a balanced and representative number of observers from each 
of the major groupings within CSCE. As the U.S. and other NATO 
states have gained experience in accommodating the needs of 
observers, the quality and frequency of the opportunities 
extended for observation during Western exercises have been 
markedly enhanced. Observers from the U.S. have usually 
attended the maneuvers of other countries when invited. 


26 



Prior Notification of Ma j o r Military Movements 


The Final Act notes that CSCE participants "may at their 
own discretion" give notification of their major military move¬ 
ments. The Final Act does not lay down any commitments except 
to provide that the participating states will give "further 
consideration to this question at a later time." 

To date, no signatory state has given notification of a 
major military movement not associated with an exercise. 

However, the United States and other NATO allies have provided 
information on movements in the context of certain maneuver 
notifications. The Norwegian notification for "Arctic Express" 
in January of 1978, a maneuver which included U.S. troop parti¬ 
cipation, mentioned the deployment plans of the main units 
involved before and after the exercise. The U.S. continues 
to refer to "Reforger," the annual return of continental U.S.- 
based forces to Europe for the fall exercise season, in the 
notifications given of its fall exercises in Europe. 

The Commission noted that at the Belgrade meeting, delega¬ 
tions of many countries expressed a strong interest in strength¬ 
ening the provisions of the prior notification section of the 
Final Act's CBMs. To this end, four NATO countries offered 
a proposal which, among other things, called for notification 
of major military movements in a manner similar to that required 
for major military maneuvers. The proposal also set forth 
numerous other provisions relating to the notification of major 
troop movements. Since these provisions could strengthen 
security in Europe, the Commission believes that they warrant 
further consideration and that it would be useful to pursue 
them during discussions at the Madrid review meeting. 

Exchange of Military Visits 


Under the category of "other confidence-building measures" 
the Final Act encourages exchanges of military personnel, 
including visits by military delegations. There are many on¬ 
going programs of this type between the armed forces of the 
United States and the NATO allies which predate CSCE and clearly 
reflect implementation of CBM provisions of the Final Act. 

There have also been frequent exchanges of high-level military 
delegations between Eastern and Western countries since the 
signing of the Final Act. While these exchanges have involved 
high-level military personnel, there have been no exchange 
visits of defense ministers since the signing of the Final Act. 


W. A listing of East-West military delegation exchanges appears 
in Appendix I, Chart 2. 


27 





Eastern Criticism 


While the U.S. and allied record in implementing the CBM 
provisions of the Final Act has been in accordance with both 
the spirit and the letter of the document, this has not 
prevented Eastern criticism in these matters. Soon after the 
Helsinki Final Act was signed, the West was attacked by the 
Eastern countries for using the Final Act's CBM provisions as 
an excuse for holding more frequent maneuvers near the borders 
of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The Eastern countries 
seem to have recognized the weakness of this charge, for such 
criticism has not been repeated for some time. 

The U.S. has also been criticized on occasion for failing 
to give notification of large maneuvers based in the U.S. 
involving more than 25,000 men. These maneuvers, however, are 
clearly outside the scope of CSCE, since the Final Act only 
covers maneuvers either in Europe or within 250 kilometers of 
the frontier of another European participating state. Notifica¬ 
tion for maneuvers held in the U.S., therefore, are not required 
or expected under the Final Act. 

Another common criticism has been that NATO maneuvers have 
been too big. This again is a misreading of the Helsinki 
accords, since there is nothing in the Final Act limiting the 
size of maneuvers. 

Questions Relating to Disarmament 

The paragraph entitled "Questions Relating to Disarmament" 
follows immediately after the specific CBM provisions in the 
Final Act. It calls upon the participating states, in general 
terms, to take "effective measures" towards achieving the even¬ 
tual goal of general and complete disarmament under strict and 
effective international control. The Final Act makes no provi¬ 
sion for or mention of disarmament negotiations in any specific 
forum. This section of the Final Act simply notes the interest 
of the participating states in the necessity of disarmament 
and effective arms control. Therefore, the efforts of the 
Soviet Union and its allies to link implementation with one¬ 
sided views of "general" disarmament, or to portray other 
countries as acting in bad faith or failing to advocate disarma¬ 
ment, are not consistent with the provisions of the Final Act. 

The U.S. is actively engaged in a broad range of arms 
control efforts affecting Europe. Together with its NATO 
allies, the U.S. is continuing efforts at the Vienna Mutual 
and Balanced Force Reduction (MBFR) negotiations to reach agree¬ 
ment on reducing and limiting force levels in central Europe. 


28 




On another level, the U.S. has now reached a new agreement 
with the Soviet Union on strategic arms limitations (SALT II) 
although it has not been approved by Congress yet. The United 
States also has initiated or actively participates in discus¬ 
sions aimed at controlling conventional arms transfers, ending 
nuclear testing, preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons, 
controlling anti-sate 11ite weapons and banning chemical and 
radiological weapons. In other forums, such as the Geneva- 
based Committee on Disarmament and the United Nations, the U.S. 
actively participates in global and regional arms control and 
disarmament efforts. In the spring of 1978, the U.S. partici¬ 
pated actively in the United Nations Special Session on Disarma¬ 
ment. At this time, a Presidential Declaration was issued 
concerning limitations on the U.S. use of nuclear weapons. The 
U.S. is now engaged in following up on the various recommenda¬ 
tions which emerged from the meeting. 

General Considerations 


The final section of the CBM portion of Basket I, entitled 
"General Considerations" notes the complementary nature of the 
political and military aspects of security. Several times the 
Soviet Union has cited this passage and the section on "Ques¬ 
tions Relating to Disarmament," in an effort to establish a 
relationship between implementation of the Final Act and its 
own view of further progress in the disarmament field. Indica¬ 
tive of this attitude were the proposals advanced by the East 
at the Warsaw Pact summit meeting in Bucharest in November of 
1976. One proposal advocated foreclosing any expansion in the 
membership of the Warsaw Pact and NATO and another suggested 
a treaty on non-first-use of nuclear weapons among all CSCE 
signatories. 

In rejecting these proposals, the U.S. and its allies noted 
that while seemingly innovative, these Warsaw Pact proposals 
were not new or even consistent with the Final Act. They noted 
that all CSCE participants had already pledged, in Principle 
II of the Declaration of Principles and in the U.N. Charter, 
to renounce the threat or use of force applicable to all types 
of weapons. Furthermore, the right of states to decide about 
joining treaties of alliance is confirmed in Principle I of 
the Declaration of Principles. The U.S. position was then, 
and continues to be, that priority should be given to realistic 
efforts to achieve genuine measures of disarmament and arms 
control in the appropriate forums, especially SALT and MBFR, 
in addition to CSCE. 


CONCLUSION - CHAPTER 2 


Overall, the U.S. record of compliance with the Declaration 
of Principles and Confidence-Bui1ding Measures of Basket I has 
been consistent with both the spirit and letter of these Final 


29 




Act provisions. The 10 Principles in the Declaration have long 
been the guiding principles in U.S. foreign policy conduct with 
all the CSCE states. 

On the practical level, the U.S. has scrupulously imple¬ 
mented all of the Final Act's Confidence-Building Measures. 

In some areas, notably the advance notification of smaller 
maneuvers, the U.S., and its allies, have moved beyond their 
minimal commitments and have taken discretionary steps 
encouraged by the Final Act. 

The U.S. continues to regard arms control and disarmament 
as the primary goals of its foreign policy, but thinks that 
discussion of these subjects in the CSCE context should not 
detract from ongoing negotiations in other forums. 

The Commission welcomes the Pell Amendment to the 1980 
State Department appropriations bill which puts the U.S. 
squarely in compliance with Principle X by rescinding the 
restriction on funds appropriated for assessed contributions 
to U.N. agencies. 


30 


CHAPTER THREE 


HUMAN RIGHTS; PRINCIPLE VII 
INTRODUCTION 


As representatives of 35 nations gathered at Helsinki on 
August 1, 1975, to sign the Final Act, a chorus of protests and 

criticisms arose from many quarters throughout the West. In 
the United States these voices -- in the Congress, the press 
and from the public -- expressed the fear that, because of the 
danger of reconfirming the post-World War II boundaries, the 
new agreement would make conditions more difficult for the 
peoples of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Other voices, 
most notably those of the Western leaders who themselves had 
signed the historic document at Helsinki, were proclaiming the 
arrival of a new era in East-West relations. Uniquely, this 
accord bound all CSCE states to respect the human rights and 
fundamental freedoms of their own citizens and to gradually 
lift the restrictions against the free movement of people, 
information and ideas across national borders. 

The "free movement" provisions are contained primarily in 
Basket III, the section titled "Cooperation in Humanitarian and 
Other Fields." These latter provisions are relatively specific 
and are dealt with in some detail -- as far as U.S. implementa¬ 
tion is concerned -- in Chapter Five of this report. Although 
Basket III is frequently referred to as the "human rights" part 
of the Final Act -- and indeed is important in that regard -- 
the heart and soul of human rights in the Helsinki document 
is contained in Principle VII of Basket I. 

Principle VII is the most comprehensive statement of basic 
human rights which the governments represented at Helsinki have 
ever collectively acknowledged. This provision reads as 
f o11ows : 

VII. Respect for human rights and fundamental 
freedoms, including the freedom of thought, 
conscience, religion or belief 

"The participating states will respect human 
rights and fundamental freedoms, including the 
freedom of thought, conscience, religion or 
belief, for all without distinction as to race, 
sex, language or religion. 

"They will promote and encourage the 
effective exercise of civil, political, economic, 
social, cultural and other rights and freedoms 





all of which derive from the inherent dignity 
of the human person and are essential for his 
free and full development. 

"Within this framework the participating 
States will recognize and respect the freedom 
of the individual to profess and practise, alone 
or in community with others, religion or belief 
acting in accordance with the dictates of his 
own conscience. 

"The participating States on whose territory 
national minorities exist will respect the right 
of persons belonging to such minorities to 
equality before the law, will afford them the 
full opportunity for the actual enjoyment of 
human rights and fundamental freedoms and will, 
in this manner, protect their legitimate 
interests in this sphere. 

"The participating States recognize the 
universal significance of human rights and 
fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an 
essential factor for the peace, justice and 
well-being necessary to ensure the development 
of friendly relations and cooperation among 
themselves as among all States. 

"They will constantly respect these rights 
and freedoms in their mutual relations and will 
endeavour jointly and separately, including in 
cooperation with the United Nations, to promote 
universal and effective respect for them. 

"They confirm the right of the individual 
to know and act upon his rights and duties in 
this field. 

"In the field of human rights and 
fundamental freedoms, the participating States 
will act in conformity with the purposes and 
principles of the Charter of the United Nations 
and with the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights. They will also fulfill their obligations 
as set forth in the international declarations 
and agreements in this field, including inter 
alia the International Covenants on Human Rights, 
by which they may be bound." 

Although, as indicated in the Final Act, all of the Princi¬ 
ples agreed to at Helsinki are deemed to be of equal importance, 
nothing at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe 
captured the imagination and support of the peoples of the CSCE 
states more than the human rights guarantees contained in Prin¬ 
ciple VII. Most of the allegations of CSCE implementation 
shortcomings -- in the East and the West -- have focused on 
this area. This is both understandable and laudable since it 
is in Principle VII that the lives and fates of individual human 


32 


beings are most involved. Indeed, the attention which has been 
paid in CSCE to the destinies of individual human beings is 
one of its most valuable contributions to international rela¬ 
tions. In the past, the U.S. has been outspoken in its concern 
for the He 1sinki-guaranteed rights of citizens of other CSCE 
countries. Therefore, it is appropriate that at least equal 
attention be devoted in this report to the concerns expressed 
by other CSCE countries about the rights of individual U.S. 
citizens under the Final Act. The Commission is thoroughly 
convinced that the emphasis on individual human beings must 
be maintained if the Helsinki accords are to have an effective 
and lasting impact on East-West relations. 

In examining U.S. compliance with the human rights commit¬ 
ments of the Final Act, the Commission adopted a broad interpre¬ 
tation of the provisions of Principle VII in the belief that 
this would agree with the expansive spirit of the Helsinki 
document itself. Not only did we consider the U.S. morally, if 
not legally, bound by the U.N. covenants on human rights, but 
we also looked at a range of topics which arguably could be 
said to fall outside the actual wording of the Final Act. The 
Commission reviewed the major components of human rights set 
forth under Principle VII including political, civil, economic 
and social rights and religious freedom. In addition, the 
Comrnis sion exami ned such areas as discrimination, the status 
of American Indians, and women's rights. As with the rest of 
the report, our examination concentrated to a large extent on 
criticisms lodged by other CSCE states and domestic groups, 
including groups which participated in the Commission's hearings 
on human rights, April 3 and 4, 1979. 

In responding to these criticisms, we relied heavily on 
materials and information supplied by responsible government 
agencies and interested private sources. We have tried to 
treat, in one way or another, all the criticisms which have 
come to our attention, including those which appear to be 
obvious propaganda. We have acted in the belief that the 
importance of Principle VII justifies going to extraordinary 
lengths to respond to all criticisms in good faith. 

POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS 


The fundamental human rights sanctioned by Principle VII 
of the Helsinki agreement are the cornerstones of the American 
political system. This system, as stated in Principle VII, 
is designed to ensure the "civil, political, economic, social, 
cultural and other rights and freedoms all of which derive from 
the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for 
his free and full development." While no one argues that the 
U.S. system is perfect, its resilience and capacity for self¬ 
correction and further improvement constitute a uniquely 
effective mechanism to pursue these goals. 


33 



The U.S. Constitution explicitly guarantees "the freedoms 
of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all," found 
in Principle VII. Assurances that these rights can be exer¬ 
cised "without discrimination as to race, sex, language or reli¬ 
gion" are implicitly incorporated into the body of Consti¬ 
tutional law through use of the equal protection and due process 
clauses of the Fifth and 14th Amendments. 

The U.S. Constitution is not the only guarantor of funda¬ 
mental freedoms to American citizens. State constitutions 
duplicate and often expand the rights of the people they 
govern. Statutory law, both federal and state, has been a 
primary vehicle for enforcement and expansion of rights in such 
areas as voting, housing, employment and education. American 
courts, the administrators of justice in the United States, 
comprise a sophisticated procedural system designed to ensure 
that violations of rights are punished and that future or 
repeated violations are avoided. 

The political system itself is the ultimate guardian of 
fundamental rights. When government fails to protect or even 
violates civil or political rights, individuals, elected repre¬ 
sentatives and the media can force the government to respond 
to charges that it has violated American and international prin¬ 
ciples of justice. Several recent examples of the success of 
American safeguards against such abuse have involved prosecution 
and conviction of high government officials for violations of 
the law which were uncovered by the press. Press revelation 
of corporate bribery and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wrongdoing has also 
resulted in criminal prosecution. 

Freedoms of Religion, Speech and Privacy 

"Within this framework the participating 
states will recognize and respect the freedom 
of the individual to profess and practice alone 
or in community with others, religion or belief 
acting in accordance with the dictates of his 
own conscience." (Principle VII) 

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the free¬ 
doms of religion and speech. It has been construed widely to 
include other freedoms as well, including freedom of associa¬ 
tion. Numerous suits brought before U.S. courts have estab¬ 
lished the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion and belief 
referred to in Principle VII. 

The freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment 
provides two guarantees: first, it prohibits the establishment 
of any religion by the government, and secondly , it protects 
free exercise of religion by individuals. The Supreme Court 


34 



rulings prevent any discrimination against particular religious 
groups. At the same time, however, the Court has promoted reli¬ 
gion generally by sanctioning the government's decision to give 
all religious groups and charitable organizations tax exempt 
status. The right of the individual to practice his or her 
own religion includes the right to promote that religion and 
encourage participation by others. 

The freedom of speech clause of the Constitution provides 
the broadest protection for freedoms of thought, conscience 
and belief. The Pentagon Papers case, which involved a suit 
by the Justice Department to restrain the New York Times and 
Washington Post from printing secret Defense Department docu¬ 
ments, is a noteworthy recent example of the scope of this guar¬ 
antee. The Supreme Court held that the fundamental freedom 
of speech and press protected publication of a classified docu¬ 
ment despite the government's argument that such publication 
would breach national security. Other recent examples were 
the massive popular opposition to the Vietnam war and the public 
outrage over the Watergate scandal which were freely and exten¬ 
sively reported in both domestic and international news media. 

The courts have gone so far as to hold that inciteful 
speech, advocating violence or even overthrow of the govern¬ 
ment, may not be punished unless such speech is intended to 
produce imminent lawlessness and would in fact be likely to 
do so. First Amendment protection, however, is not limited 
to verbal expressions of Principle VII freedoms. Activity 
involving picketing, protest marches, and the use of symbols, 
including the American flag, have been safeguarded under the 
First Amendment. Constraints on exercise of these freedoms 
have been allowed only where there is a valid competing public 
interest and where a less restrictive solution is not 
avai1 a b1e. 

Legal safeguards of the right to privacy are derived 
primarily from the First Amendment freedom of association, the 
Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure, 
and the Fifth Amendment prohibition against involuntary self¬ 
incrimination. Constitutional interpretations of the right 
to privacy have most often dealt with questions of unreasonable 
search and seizure. In 1967, the Supreme Court held that wire¬ 
taps and other electronic surveillance of citizens conducted 
by government agencies may violate the Fourth Amendment prohibi¬ 
tion against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Freedom 
of Information Act authorized citizens to examine those records 
the government has collected in order to assess their accuracy 
or appropriateness. 


Additionally, requests for information by the government 
may also infringe on individual privacy. To protect this right, 
Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974 which limits the collec- 




tion, retention and dissemination of personal information by 
Federal Government agencies. Several major legislative bills 
which address the problems involved in balancing society's 
"right to know" and the individual's right to privacy are 
pending before the Congress. 

Rights of the Accused 

The Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution 
and subsequent judicial interpretations of the Constitution 
provide specific protections for anyone accused of a crime. 

State and federal judicial systems are required to protect these 
rights for all citizens and this protection has even been 
extended to aliens. 

Protection actually begins before any formal accusations 
are made. All persons are guaranteed freedom from unreason¬ 
able searches and seizures, the right to remain silent during 
investigation and the right to be represented by an attorney 
even when informally suspected of a crime. 

Once formal charges are made, an accused person has the 
continuing right to remain silent, as well as the right to a 
speedy trial, to an interpreter at trial, to cross-examina¬ 
tion of witnesses, and to any exculpatory evidence in the hands 
of the prosecution. In accordance with Article 14 of the Inter¬ 
national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, legal counsel 
must be provided by the state without cost to indigent defen¬ 
dants. Legal representation is authorized at public expense 
for indigents involved in prosecution at the federal level as 
well. 


The burden of proof for all elements of a crime rests upon 
the state. The accused is presumed innocent until the gover- 
ment's case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt before an impar¬ 
tial judge and a jury selected from a representative group of 
citizens. The trial court or court of first instance determines 
the facts of each case and applies the law to those facts. 

If convicted, persons have a statutory right of appeal. 
Often two levels of appellate courts are provided by both state 
and federal judiciaries to review trial courts' conclusions 
of law. Conclusions of fact made by the trial judge or jury 
are not ordinarily reviewable by the appellate courts. Defen¬ 
dants also have a Constitutional right to free transcripts or 
other aids necessary to carry out the appeal, and a Constitu¬ 
tional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 

These Constitutional and statutory rights conform to standards 
set not only by the Final Act but also by the United Nation's 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 5 and 9) and 
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
(Articles 6, 7, 9 and 14). 


36 



While the ability to exercise the fundamental rights out¬ 
lined thus far has been impeded in some cases, the judiciary 
provides a mechanism to hear, address, and redress complaints 
that the procedural system has malfunctioned. For example, 
the U.S. Supreme Court in 1977 overturned a jury selection 
system which, though not intentionally discriminatory, did 
exclude a disproportionately high number of Hispanics. In 
addition, several recent suits have successfully challenged 
the effectiveness of court-appointed counsel and have set more 
stringent standards for attorneys' representation of indigent 
de f endant s . 

Accused individuals are afforded protection by both state 
and federal laws. States must meet federal standards in pro¬ 
tecting rights but, at the same time, they are free to adopt 
more stringent standards or add new protections not covered 
by federal law. The division of power between the federal and 
state governments prevents federal review of some defendants' 
claims. However, whenever a defendant feels his or her Consti¬ 
tutional rights have been violated by the government, for 
example because a fair and impartial trial was denied or punish 
ment was cruel and unusual, then he or she may file a writ of 
habeas corpus before a federal trial court. By filing this 
writ, a convicted person requests judicial inquiry into the 
legality of his or her restraint. 

The United States is taking positive steps to improve the 
administration of justice by federal courts. President Carter 
has sought to enhance access to federal courts by increasing 
the total number of judicial appointments by approximately 20 
percent. The Congress also passed the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 
which is designed to break the backlog of criminal cases in 
federal courts. The law requires that defendants be indicted 
within 30 days of arrest and that they be arraigned within 10 
days of indictment. A trial must begin within 60 days of 
arraignment. If the courts do not comply with these provisions 
with certain limited statutory exceptions, dismissal of the 
case is mandatory. 

Safeguards Against Discrimination 

"The participating states on whose territory 
national minorities exist will respect the right 
of persons belonging to such minorities to equal¬ 
ity before the law, wi11 afford them the full 
opportunity for the actual enjoyment of human 
rights and fundamental freedoms and will, in 
this manner, protect their legitimate interests 
in this sphere." (Principle VII) 


37 



Historically, the American record of discrimination against 
racial and ethnic minorities has been subject to serious 
criticism. Problems of U.S. compliance addressed throughout 
this report illustrate the depth of discrimination's roots in 
this country. However, the efforts made by federal and state 
governments, particularly in the last 15 years, to redress 
inequities while preserving "freedom of thought, conscience, 
religion and belief for all" merit equal consideration by those 
concerned with monitoring U.S. compliance with the Final Act. 
These efforts in large part are fruits of the political activism 
of black American leaders in the 1960's. 

The 14th Amendment codified the federal consensus that 
"no state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction 
the equal protection of the law." Basing its efforts on this 
Amendment, together with the 13th and 15th Amendments which 
outlaw slavery and racially discriminatory election laws respec¬ 
tively, the Federal Government has sought to eliminate dis¬ 
crimination against black Americans and other minorities. By 
incorporating the Fifth Amendment due process clause into the 
equal protection guarantees, federal courts have applied the 
same standards to federal violations of guaranteed freedoms 
that have been applied to state violations. In recent times, 
the courts have sanctioned legislation and programs which allow 
women, blacks and other minority racial or ethnic groups prefer¬ 
ences in areas such as education, employment and government 
contracts. These programs are often labeled "affirmative • 
action." 

The Constitutional provisions have been given substantive 
meaning by extensive civil rights statutes passed since 1964. 
Many of these statutes are detailed in other sections of the 
report. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids racial discrim¬ 
ination in public acconnmoda t i on s , in the use of federal money 
and in employment. Its provisions apply to private parties 
as well as to state governments. All racial discrimination 
in contracting, whether public or private, is outlawed. The 
Fair Housing Act of 1968 and other provisions of the United 
States Code prevent discrimination in lease, rental or purchase 
ol housing. Violations of these laws can result in civil suits 
by the Attorney General or by private parties. 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 authorizes the Attorney 
General to send federal voting registrars into areas where 
voting discrimination has traditionally existed and suspends 
literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting because of their 
history of discriminatory use. It also allows the Attorney 
General to review changes in voting laws in those jurisdic¬ 
tions where such laws have been used to deny persons the right 
to vote. The Voting Rights Act was extended in 1975 to apply 
to certain ethnic minorities who speak a language other than 


38 





English. Elections must be held in both English and the tradi¬ 
tional language where there is a higher than average English 
illiteracy rate among minority voting age citizens. 

The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission publishes 
detailed guidelines to deal with potential job discrimination 
and has been instrumental in resolving employee complaints 
brought before it. It has also been active in bringing employ¬ 
ment discrimination suits to the courts. The Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) enforces strict rules for 
insuring non-discrimi natory availability of federally financed 
housing. In cooperation with federal banking authorities, HUD 
has acted to ensure that black citizens have equal access to 
mortgage 1oan s. 

Discrimination against women, discussed in detail in 
another section of this report, is prohibited by several 
statutes including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Education 
Amendments of 1972 and 1974, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. 
Equal protection of women has been guaranteed by special legis¬ 
lation concerning credit decisions by lending institutions, pay 
scales for government employees, employment practices of federal 
contractors, and use of federal money by educational institu¬ 
tions. The proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) passed by 
Congress has not yet been ratified by three-fourths of the state 
legislatures as required by the U.S. Constitution. However, 
many states and cities have adopted constitutional or charter 
amendments as well as statutes or ordinances to ensure funda¬ 
mental rights for women. Though the Supreme Court has not given 
women the automatic protections afforded minorities under the 
Constitution, Congressional and Executive Branch concern with 
eradication of discrimination has been evident. A major example 
is the appointment of a special Presidential Task Force on Sex 
Discrimination to coordinate a review of federal statutes, regu¬ 
lations, programs and policies to remove any discriminatory 
treatment of women. 

Individuals who feel that their Constitutional rights or 
statutory privileges are being violated have access to federal 
courts. Since 1975, the Supreme Court has enforced civil rights 
statutes which prevent exclusion of children from private 
schools on racial grounds and which allow retroactive award of 
seniority to blacks, women and other victims of discrimination. 
The Court has ruled that prospective jurors must be examined to 
determine if they have racial prejudices. It has also approved 
controversial public housing desegregation plans prepared by 
HUD and has recently sanctioned a voluntary affirmative action 
plan which uses quotas to redress past racial discrimination. 

The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, created 
in 1957, has primary responsibility for enforcing the civil 
rights laws described thus far. In testimony submitted to the 


39 


Helsinki Coirmission for the April 4, 1979 hearing, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General John Huerta explained the changes 
in the Division's enforcement role since 1957. He cited the 
fact that "in Fiscal Year 1978 alone, the Division filed 55 
civil actions challenging 'patterns and practices' of discrimin¬ 
ation affecting, in some cases, literally thousands of people. 

In addition, it has initiated 36 criminal prosecutions and par¬ 
ticipated in 180 other lawsuits." In his oral testimony, 

Huerta told the Commission that approximately 3,500 criminal 
civil rights investigations are conducted each year. 

Allegations of Police Misconduct 

At the Commission hearings, Huerta stated: "The bulk (of 
criminal civil rights prosecutions) have been against state and 
local law enforcement officers charged with unlawful beatings 
of citizens." Serious allegations of police misconduct at 
various levels of government have concerned not only the Justice 
Department but also the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and 
several private civil rights organizations. In 1978, civil 
rights groups in Memphis, Tennessee, filed a complaint with 
the United Nations which cited incidents of police misconduct 
against black citizens in the area. The U.S. Civil Rights 
Commission had published an exhaustive study in August of 1978, 
entitled "Civil Crisis - Civic Challenge: Police Community 
Relations in Memphis," independent of the complaint presented 
to the U.N. The Justice Department had also initiated investi¬ 
gations into these complaints at the time the petition was filed 
before the U.N. A reply to the complaint by the State Depart¬ 
ment noted that these questions were already being addressed 
by federal and state officials responsible for investigation 
of the abuses. The U.N. Subconrmi s s i on handling the complaint 
decided that, under the circumstances, the U.S. should not be 
cited for human rights violations. 

The Justice Department has been investigating allegations 
of police brutality in several U.S. cities, most notably Phila¬ 
delphia, Penns 1yvania. On August 14, 1979, the Department filed 
suit in federal court against the Philadelphia Police Department 
and several city officials charging that they had violated the 
civil rights of Philadelphia citizens. Allegations were based 
on an eight-month investigation conducted by the United States 
Attorney in Philadelphia and the Civil Rights Division of the 
Justice Department. The complaints were not limited to particu¬ 
lar racial or ethnic groups. This action, which is unprece¬ 
dented, has been interpreted as a signal to all police depart¬ 
ments to review and, where appropriate, improve their citizen 
complaint, community relations and internal discipline pro¬ 
cedures. Drew Days III, Assistant Attorney General for Civil 
Rights, explained that the purpose of the suit against Philadel¬ 
phia officials is "to end certain institutional weaknesses in 


40 



dealing with police misconduct." The Department has asked the 
court to stop the flow of federal funds to the Police Department 
in Philadelphia until recommended changes are made. Recently 
the federal court dismissed portions of the suit. However, a 
Justice Department appeal of this action is under consideration. 

The Civil Rights Commission continues to investigate and 
monitor charges that patterns of discrimination exist in the 
administration of justice in the United States. A current study 
called the "Police Practices Project" has involved extensive 
hearings and fact-finding in Philadelphia and in Houston, Texas. 
The report focuses primarily on the procedures used by these 
local police departments to deal with complaints of police 
brutality. The project staff has studied other agexicies includ¬ 
ing the FBI, United States Attorney offices, the Justice Depart¬ 
ment and related state and local agencies in the course of 
determining the effects of police misconduct on minority 
communities. The report should be released in January of 1980. 

The CSCE Commission has also received specific complaints 
about abuse of citizens' rights by local and federal law 
enforcement officers from the Mexican-American Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund (MALDEF). In August of 1978, Commission 
staff referred 30 alleged cases of police brutality to the 
Criminal Section of the Justice Department's Civil Rights 
Division. At the time this request was made, the Justice 
Department had already provided two status reports to MALDEF 
President Vilma Martinez. The Justice Department determined 
that criminal civil rights prosecutions were not justified in 
43 of 5 6 cases brought to its attention by MALDEF. In a letter 
to MALDEF explaining the basis for this determination, the 
Justice Department noted that it did not find sufficient 
evidence to corroborate the allegations. 

MALDEF and other Hispanic groups have also charged the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) with abuse of 
citizens' rights by conducting "dragnet" raids in search of 
illegal aliens. This problem was addressed in a 1977 decision 
by the United States District Court for the Northern District 
of Illinois which prohibited the search or seizure of persons 
of Hispanic descent beyond the Mexican-American border, unless 
there are "specifically articulable facts" that the person is 
in the United States illegally. A more recent case, alleging 
misconduct by INS officials in Onargo, Illinois, was brought 
to the Corrmi s s i on ' s attention by the Washington Helsinki Watch 
Committee in testimony on April 4, 1979. This case is now being 

litigated in federal court. 


5 . Catz, Fourth Amendment Limitation on Nonborder Searches 
for Illegal Aliens: The Immigration and Naturalization 

Service Meets the Constitution, 39 Ohio St.L.3. 66 (1978). 


41 






When queried about investigative procedures in cases of 
misconduct against U.S. citizens by its officials, the INS 
Office of Professional Responsibility, in correspondence dated 
July 5, 1979, provided the following explanation: 

"It is the policy of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service to investigate all 
complaints received alleging misconduct by 
Service employees. Complaints of physical 
abuse...may be investigated by this office or 
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Local 
police often have investigative jurisdiction 
and in such cases this office monitors their 
inquiry and subsequent events. In any of the 
above, the Civil Rights Division of the 
Department of Justice is immediately notified 
te1ephonica11y with a written follow-up. Local 
U.S. Attorneys are also informed." 

The problems faced by Hi spanic-Americans in the enforcement 
of immigration laws will be addressed in detail in a study by 
the Civil Rights Commission scheduled for release in the fall 
of 1979. 

Future Prospects 


A fairly recent development in dealing with alleged viola¬ 
tions of citizens' rights has been the establishment of a 
cooperative arrangement between the Justice Department's Civil 
Rights Division and the State Department to evaluate and respond 
to domestic human rights complaints raised in international 
forums. A procedure has been set up to ensure that these com¬ 
plaints are seriously considered against the commitments made 
in the Helsinki accords. This arrangement, and the more 
informal ones between the Justice Department, the Helsinki Com¬ 
mission and the Civil Rights Commission are potentially impor¬ 
tant first steps in responding to complaints raised under the 
Final Act. 

The Commission fully supports the Justice Department's 
assessment of its role in monitoring U.S. domestic compliance 
with the Final Act: "We do not consider ourselves an agency 
to whitewash the United States' non-compliance with Helsinki 
and to the extent that our review indicates civil rights viola¬ 
tions, we will say that the United States is not complying with 
its own domestic norms." It also welcomes the Justice Depart¬ 
ment's initiative in engaging Professor Robert Lillich of the 
University of Virginia to examine international human rights 
norms and standards and to compare these findings with existing 
American civil rights laws. 


42 



The Commission on Civil Rights, created in 1957 is 
mandated to assess the laws and policies of the United States 
with respect to civil rights. Staff Director Louis Nunez 
described the Civil Rights Commission's activities in his April 
3, 1979, testimony before the Helsinki Commission. He high¬ 

lighted important problems in key areas addressed by this 
report. He stated that "...this nation confronts complex and 
often subtle discriminatory patterns. To deal with them, our 
society must go beyond neutral or non-discrimi natory behavior 
by individuals and institutions. We have to institutionalize 
our efforts to insure that equal opportunity exists throughout 
our society. This requires not merely new civil rights laws, 
but more effective enforcement of existing laws, regulations 
and policies." 

The Civil Rights Commission is a fact-finding agency 
concerned with general social problems. Its primary purpose 
is to monitor trends or patterns of discrimination and to make 
recommendations which affect large numbers of people. Numerous 
reports published each year by the Civil Rights Commission 
illustrate its commitment to monitoring and improving the per¬ 
formance of the U.S. in guaranteeing civil rights of American 
citizens. The Civil Rights Commission is currently studying 
the possibility of expanding its activities to include investi¬ 
gations of individual cases raised by human rights organizations 
such as Amnesty International. 

In addition, the Senate recently passed an amendment to 
the Civil Rights Commission Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 
1980 which would require the Commission to "appraise the laws 
and policies of the Federal Government with respect to denials 
of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution involving 
Americans who are members of eastern and southern European 
ethnic groups...." The amendment directs the Civil Rights Com¬ 
mission to issue a report to the Congress on its findings by 
September 30, 1980. Noting that "Americans who are members 

of eastern and southern European ethnic groups have made signi¬ 
ficant contributions to our nation," CSCE Commissioner Robert 
Dole said that the amendment "will provide a mechanism that 
will enable the Congress to monitor the enforcement of those 
Federal rules and regulations that have been enacted whose 
intentions are to insure the fair treatment of all Americans." 

The laws, programs and other efforts described throughout 
this report are part of a process designed to remove discrim¬ 
ination from /American society. Despite the commitment of the 
U.S. Government to protect fundamental human rights and the 
presence of numerous safeguards built into the judicial system, 
no system based on finite resources and fallible human beings 
can ever be perfect. The most that the U.S., or any society, 
can do is to recognize its imperfections and constantly seek 
to improve them. The Commission is confident that through the 


43 


combined efforts of private individuals and organizations, the 
press, local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and 
the courts, the U.S. is moving vigorously to reduce the areas 
of injustice that remain. In so doing, the U.S. is demonstrably 
fulfilling its commitments under the Helsinki Final Act. 

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 


Principle VII of the Helsinki Final Act commits CSCE 
nations to promote and encourage the effective exercise of 
political rights and freedoms, as well as to respect the rights 
of persons belonging to national minorities and to guarantee 
them equality before the law. 

Critics charge that the United States does not provide 
equal representation to all citizens in the political process 
and that minorities are discriminated against by voting 
procedures. In addition, it has been alleged that the U.S. 
political system, as it has evolved, discriminates against 
minority parties by not providing them with equal ballot 
acce s s . 

The framers of the American Constitution gave considerable 
attention to the question of voting in Articles I and II; how¬ 
ever, they did not specifically state exactly which persons 
were to have the right to vote. Subsequently, the 15th, 19th, 

24th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as other 
voting rights laws, have further defined and extended the voting 
franchise in the U.S. The 15th Amendment was designed specifi¬ 
cally to prevent abridgement of the vote because of race. 

Later, the 19th Amendment ensured women the right to vote. 

The 24th Amendment abolished the poll tax for federal elec¬ 
tions. In 1971, the 26th Amendment extended the franchise to 
all persons 18 years of age and older. 

The 15th Amendment, enacted in 1870, states that "the right 
of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied 
or abridged by the United States or by any state on account 
of race, color or previous condition of servitude." In 1920, 
the same guarantees were extended to women through the 19th 
Amendment. Following the Amendment's passage, however, the 
exercise of the newly acquired "right to vote" by women, blacks 
and other minorities was not universally respected. Prerequis¬ 
ites to registration and voting such as literacy tests, lengthy 
residency requirements, and poll taxes were used by some states 
to impede minority participation in the election process. In 
1962, the 24th Amendment was passed to prohibit denial of the 
right to vote for federal officials because a person has not 
paid a tax. At the time the Amendment was ratified, five states 
imposed poll taxes as a condition to voting. The Supreme Court 
subsequently held that poll taxes were unconstitutional under 
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment on the basis 


44 



that the right to vote should not be conditioned on one's 
ability to pay a tax. Accordingly, poll taxes are now pro¬ 
hibited in all state and federal elections. 

Despite passage of Constitutional safeguards, Congress 
recognized that progress through case-by-case litigation was 
too slow. Acting under the authority given in Section 2 of the 
15th Amendment which provides that "the Congress shall have 
power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation," Con¬ 
gress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This legislation, 
which is regarded as the most far-reaching and effective of 
U.S. civil rights statutes, strengthened controls to prevent 
discrimination in voting. The Act was renewed in 1970, and 
again in 1975 for an additional seven-year period. The 1975 
extension expanded coverage of the Act to include non-English 
speaking citizens. 

Specifically, the original Act empowered the U.S. Attorney 
General to send federal voting registrars and federal election 
observers into states or political subdivisions where voting 
discrimination had previously occurred. In addition, the Act 
prohibited establishment of new voting practices or procedures 
until the Attorney General (or U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia) determined that the changes did not 
abridge the right to vote on account of race or color. Since 
1965, Congress has expanded the Voting Rights Act by passing 
the 1970 and 1975 Amendments. These impose a nationwide ban on 
literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting and extend the Act's 
special protections to voters in language minority groups, 
including American Indians, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and 
Alaskan Natives. 

Voting Rights Enforcement and Litigation 

As the government agency responsible for enforcing federal 
civil rights voting laws, the Justice Department's role in this 
area has expanded greatly in recent years. Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General for Civil Rights John Huerta, in testimony 
given at the Commission's April of 1979 hearings on U.S. 
compliance with the Helsinki Final Act, stated that since 1976, 
the Justice Department has reviewed more than three times the 
number of proposed voting changes than it had in all previous 
years combined. Between October of 1976 and June of 1977, for 
example, 1,204 such submissions involving 2,544 proposed changes 
were forwarded to the Justice Department. They included changes 
in bilingual procedures and polling locations. During this 
period, 40 objections were raised by the Justice Department, 
requiring modifications of the proposed changes before they 
could be instituted. During 1978, the Justice Department filed 
24 new lawsuits involving similar objections and continued to 
litigate cases filed in 1976 and 1977. 


4 5 



In April of 1976, the Attorney General objected to 13 of 
the 23 proposed annexations by the city of San Antonio, Texas, 
on the grounds that the city had not shown that the annexations 
would not result in the dilution of minority voting strength in 
a system in which the nine city council members were elected at 
large. The Justice Department suggested the adoption of a 
single-member ward system. When this was implemented two 
additional Hispanic council members were elected. 

In an April of 1979 letter to Congressman Don Edwards, 
Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcorrmi t tee on Civil and Con¬ 
stitutional Rights, officials of the Mexican-American Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) termed the San Antonio 
development "a major enhancement of political power for 
Mexican-Americans." In addition, MALDEF described the effects 
of Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act over the last four years 
as "dramatic and tangible." At the same time, MALDEF expressed 
its continuing concern regarding certain bilingual problems. 

Congress has remained active in a monitoring role since 
passing the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1973. In August 
of 1976, Chairman Edwards asked the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to evaluate the implementation of the Voting Rights Act 
with special emphasis on the Department of Justice's enforcement 
of the minority language provisions. In addition, Senator 
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and former Congressman William Ketchum 
of California requested GAO to conduct a cost effectiveness 
analysis of the bilingual provisions of the 1973 Amendments 
to the Act. The conclusion of the GAO study was that "the 
Department of Justice's program for enforcing the act has 
contributed toward fuller participation by language and racial 
minorities in the political process. However, the Act's objec¬ 
tives could be more fully realized if certain improvements were 
made." Chairman Edwards' subconrmittee held extensive hearings 
on the subject in February and June of 1978, at which both GAO 
and Justice Department officials testified. 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down several rulings 
relating to the Voting Rights Act. In Williamsburg v. Carey, 
decided in March of 1977, the Court upheld a New York legisla¬ 
tive redistricting plan. This plan had been developed specifi¬ 
cally to overcome Justice Department objections to previous 
plans which the Department felt diluted minority voting rights. 
The revised plan, upheld by the Court, increased non-white 
voting strength. The significance of this decision lies in 
the Court's ruling that, at least in some circumstances, a 
raceconscious plan does not violate the Constitution. In 
Br i scoe v. Bell, the Supreme Court rejected an effort to evade 


46 




provisions of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975 requiring 
bilingual elections. 

The Voting Rights Act: Impact on Minority Political Partici¬ 

pation 

According to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, has led to increased 
legislation, voting participation and election of minorities 
to political office in many states. A 1978 nationwide study 
conducted by the Joint Center for Political Studies listed 4,503 
blacks holding elective office in the U.S. -- 1,000 more than 
held office in 1975 and nearly four times the 1969 figure. 

Blacks have been elected mayors of several major cities, includ¬ 
ing Atlanta, Birmingham, Los Angeles, Detroit and New Orleans. 

During the last decade, the number of black elected 
officials in the South has grown from 408 to more than 2,000, 
a figure which exceeds that of any one region in the country. 

This increase, according to the Joint Center for Political 
Studies, may be attributed to the impact of reapportionment 
and the change from at-large to ward or district elections -- 
reforms prompted by voting rights legislation and enforcement. 

In addition, voter registration among blacks in the South has 
increased markedly. The percentage of eligible black voter 
registrants in the seven southern states covered by the Voting 
Rights Act provisions has nearly doubled in the last 10 years. 

Hispanic registration has also climbed steadily since 1975. 

A recent survey of Hispanic voting patterns by the Southwest Voter 
Education Project indicated that registration among Hispanics in 
Texas increased by 103,950, or 21.1 percent between 1976 and 1978. 

Most agree that the minority voter turnout was a decisive 
factor in the outcome of the 1976 presidential election. Of 
the approximately 6.6 million blacks who voted in the election, 

91 percent supported the Democratic candidate, Jimmy Carter. 

The Hispanic voting population also strongly backed Carter, 
who received 81 percent of an estimated 1.9 million votes cast 
in the contest. The black vote provided the margin of victory 
for Carter in several states, while Hispanic voters supplied 
the victorious candidate with crucial vyte edges in the pivotal 
electoral states of Texas and New York. 

Despite recent growth of minority representation and parti¬ 
cipation in the U.S. electoral process, there is still much 
progress to be made. For example, the rate of growth in the 

6~! U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The State of Civil Rights 
[ 977 , page 32. 

7. Southwest Voter Education Project, "The Latino Vote in the 
1976 Election," April of 1977, page 12. 


47 







number of black officials has declined gradually over the past 
four years, dropping from 17 percent from 1974 to 197 5 to 4 
percent from 1977 to 1978. Many observers view this trend as 
a natural leveling process following the dramatic civil rights 
strides of the late 1960's and early 1970's. In any event, 
according to the National Urban League, blacks in America today 
hold less than 1 percent of the more than 522,000 elected 
offices in the U.S., wh i 1 e ^cornp r i s i ng about 11.1 percent of 
the total U.S. population. 

Presidential Appointments 

The commitment of the Federal Government to increased 
political participation by minorities and women has been demon¬ 
strated by the distribution of Presidential appointments during 
the current Administration. Several of the appointments were 
to high-level positions, including Ambassador to the United 
Nations, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and 
Weifare, Secretary of Commerce, the new Secretary of Education, 
Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
Secretary of the Army and Solicitor General. In addition, the 
President has committed himself to the appointment of signifi¬ 
cant numbers of minorities and women to the 152 new federal 
judgeships provided for under the Omnibus Federal Judgeship 
Act of 1978. 8 9 10 

Minority Party Access to the Ballot 

The Department of Justice, under provisions of federal 
civil rights law (e.g. the Voting Rights Act) has sought to 
protect the rights of black, Asian and ethnic minorities where 
discriminatory restrictions have been placed on their access 
to the ballot. For example, the Department obtained a federal 
court injunction against the disqualification of candidates 
of the black National Democratic Party of Alabama in Dallas 
County, Alabama, when those candidates' qualification papers 
were subjected to greater scrutiny than the qualification papers 
of white political party candidates. Under the provisions of 
the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department twice prevented 
the implementation of an open primary law in Mississippi that 
would have effectively precluded blacks from running for office 
as independent candidates in general elections. In January 
of 1976, the Department prevented the implementation of a Texas 
law that would have revised the state's election law to require 


8. Joint Center for Political Science, National Roster of Black 
Elected Officials, Volume 8, 1978, page xi. 

9. National Urban League, The State of Black America, 1979, 
page 44. 

10. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The State of Civil Rights: 
1977, page 32. 


48 










the Mexi can-Amer i can La Raza Unida party, to choose its candi¬ 
dates only by convention and at its own expense rather than 
to hold primary elections (as do the Democratic and Republican 
parties), the costs of which are reimbursed by the state. 

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has 
also been active in litigating American Indian voting rights 
cases. In 197S, the Division successfully blocked an attempt 
by the Town of Bartelme, Wisconsin, to disenfranchise its Indian 
voters. The federal district court authorized the presence 
of Justice Department observers to ensure that the American 
Indians on the reservation were able to vote freely in the 
election. 

Charges of discrimination against minority political 
parties extend beyond those which are composed of racial or 
linguistic minorities. Specifically, one source has alleged 
that "the history of the evolution of state election laws shows 
that every potential threat to the two-party majority of the 
electoral system has been countered by legislation imposing 
more stringent conditions on ballot^ccess by other (than the 
Republican or Democratic) parties." The same source continues: 
"In addition to the restrictive laws and practices that confront 
all minority parties and independents, reactionary Agrees 
reserve special treatment for the Communist party." 

In the United States, laws, rules and regulations governing 
a political party's ability to gain positions on the ballot 
are set by state, not federal law. Thus, the jurisdiction of 
the Justice Department or any other federal agency is extremely 
limited. However, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Consti¬ 
tution, all persons have the right to associate for the advance¬ 
ment of their political beliefs. In addition, under the Equal 
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, these rights are 
protected from infringement by the states. These principles 
have been confirmed by various Supreme Court rulings. 

For example, the Supreme Court found an Indiana loyalty 
oath statute to be unconsitutiona1 under the First and 14th 
Amendments. In the case of the Communist Party of Indiana v. 

Whitcomb (1974), the Communist Party of Indiana had been denied 
a place on Indiana's national ballot for the 1972 general 
elections because it failed to file an affidavit stating that 
it did not advocate the overthrow of local, state or national 
government by force or violence. The Court ruled in favor of 
the Communist Party, stating that, "for purposes of determining 


11. U.S. Communist Party, Look Homeward, Jimmy Carter: The 
Status of Human Rights, USA, page 39. 

12. Ibid, page 40. 


49 







whether to grant a place on the ballot, it is improper to con¬ 
clude that any group which advocates violent overthrow or 
abstract doctrine must be regarded as necessarily advocating 
un1awf ul action." 

Cone 1u sion 


In conformity with the provisions of the Helsinki Final 
Act, the Federal Government is making a concerted effort to 
ensure the political rights of all U.S. citizens and to 
eliminate any remaining traces of discrimination. This effort 
is being undertaken in all three branches of the Federal 
Government. 

In the last decade, minorities and women have made great 
strides toward full participation in the political process. 
Though this goal has not yet been fully reached, the Federal 
Government has taken the lead to ensure continued progress. 
Furthermore, the U.S. court system has consistently upheld 
U.S. Constitutional guarantees which provide minority parties 
of any political persuasion with nearly unlimited freedom to 
espouse the doctrine of their choice. These court decisions 
have had the practical effect of increasing the equal rights 
protections of minority political parties. 

The Commission believes that legislation, court decisions 
and vigorous enforcement action by the Department of Justice 
have essentially established the voting rights of all Americans. 
This achievement has gone a long way toward promoting the effec¬ 
tive exercise of political rights called for in the Helsinki 
Final Act. The accomplishment of this ultimate goal will 
require further efforts on behalf of women and minorities to 
bring the level of their political participation into line with 
their numbers in the population. Given the resistance to social 
changes, women and minority group members themselves will have 
to continue their efforts to increase their political 
effectiveness. At the same time, governmental authorities -- 
federal, state and local -- bear a responsibility to see that 
these efforts are facilitated and not hindered. Areas where 
affirmative government action would be helpful include: 

-- Additional voter education projects; 

-- Greater attention to bilingual voting problems; 

-- Appointment at all levels of more qualified women and 
minorities to positions of political responsibility; and 

-- Continued vigilant enforcernent of voting rights. 


50 



DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE 


The individual freedoms and rights to which CSCE states 
committed themselves in Principle VII of the Helsinki Final 
Act do not specifically include protection from government 
surveillance. However, the freedoms and rights which are 
enumerated and the whole tenor of the language of Principle 
VII strongly support the notion that this protection is, at 
a minimum, implicit in the CSCE document. Furthermore, the 
reference in Principle VII to the obligations of the partici¬ 
pating states to act in conformity with the U.N. Charter and 
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes it clear that 
the intention of the Final Act is to protect citizens of CSCE 
countries from unwarranted intrusions by their governments into 
their private lives. 

Both domestic critics and several CSCE countries have cited 
domestic surveillance activities by U.S. Government agencies 
as a violation of the Final Act. Although most of these charges 
relate to activities occurring prior to the signing of the Act, 
certain critics allege that officially sanctioned surveillance 
actions against U.S. citizens continue to the present day. 

Past Abuses 


There is general agreement that up to 1975 several govern¬ 
ment agencies engaged in abuses of authority resulting in an 
invasion of the privacy of numerous U.S. citizens and private 
groups. These abuses reached a high point during the Watergate 
era. They included electronic surveillance, illegal searches, 
burglaries, mail thefts and other postal violations and the 
use of informers. Along with other aspects of the Watergate 
scandal, these abuses were brought to public attention largely 
through the investigative efforts of a free press. Public know¬ 
ledge in turn led to a series of investigations and remedial 
measures in all three branches of the U.S. Government. 

Action by the Congress 

As reports of abuses by certain federal agencies (primarily 
in the intelligence area) mounted, the 94th Congress (1975-76) 
established select committees to look into the various allega¬ 
tions. The Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental 
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (often called 
the "Church Committee") conducted lengthy hearings and issued an 
extensive report covering a wide range of accusations which had 
been made against intelligence agencies. The House Select 
Committee on Intelligence (frequently referred to as the "Pike 
Committee") also held extensive hearings, concentrating primari- 


51 





ly on fiscal procedures and effectiveness of elements of the 
intelligence community. Recommendations of the final reports 
of both committees were published and received widespread public 
attention. 

Hearings on oversight for the Federal Bureau of Investiga¬ 
tion (FBI) were held by the House Judiciary Committee in both 
the 94th and 95th Congresses. The Senate Judiciary Committee, 
in the 95th Congress, held hearings on the need for an FBI 
statutory charter which would define the agency's function and 
powers. Numerous pieces of legislation have been introduced 
aimed at enacting an omnibus statutory charter to cover the 
intelligence community. At the same time, efforts to enact 
a separate charter for the FBI reached a new stage on July 31, 
1979, when the Carter Administration proposed such a charter. 
This proposal, which is aimed in part at increased protection 
for American citizens' right to privacy, was generally hailed 
as a step toward. It seems clear, however, that individual 
provisions of the bill will be sharply questioned by certain 
members of Congress and civil rights groups. 

In addition to legislative action directed at the FBI, 
there have been a number of bills, hearings and discussions 
since 1975 about abuse of power -- both actual and potential 
-- by such agencies as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the 
(CIA), the Drug Enforcement Administration, the National 
Security Agency, the Customs Service and other law enforcement 
entities. The most far-reaching new law enacted thus far is 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 which contains 
provisions for added protection of citizen privacy rights in 
the area of electronic surveillance. A leading civil rights 
expert on the question of domestic surveillance testified at 
the time that the Act would correct most, if not all, of the 
privacy abuses which have been uncovered. According to the 
House Judiciary Committee: "Enactment of the Foreign Intelli¬ 
gence Surveillance Act was one of the landmark accomplishments 
of the 94th Congress, completing years of work involving two 
Administrations and four separate Congressional committees. 

It represents a unique historical consensus. . . in a joint effort 
to assure the American public that the abuses of the Watergate 
era will not be repeated." 

Actions by the Executive Branch 


The Executive Branch has also initiated a number of 
measures since 1975 to reduce unauthorized intrusions into the 
lives of citizens. Even prior to the signing of the Helsinki 
Final Act, a Presidential Commission on CIA Activities within 
the United States published its report on June 10, 1975, con¬ 

taining 30 recommendations regarding past abuses, remedial 


52 



action and future prevention. As a result, President Ford 
announced a partial reorganization of intelligence responsibil¬ 
ities through an omnibus Executive Order on February IS, 1976. 
This Order, amended by President Carter on January 24, 1978, 
detailed broad restrictions on intelligence rights of U.S. 
citizens and groups. 

On February 24, 1976, the General Accounting Office issued 

a report on "FBI Domestic Intelligence Operations -- Their 
Purpose and Scope: Issues that Need to be Resolved." Shortly 
thereafter, on April 5, 1976, then Attorney General Edward Levi 
issued guidelines placing restrictions on the FBI's conduct 
of domestic security investigations. 

Judicial Decisions 


Along with the legislative and executive branches of the 
government, federal courts have taken a series of steps related 
to abuses of the past in the area of invasion of privacy. Among 
nimerous legal actions initiated is the currently pending trial 
of a former director of the FBI and two former FBI officials 
on charges of authorizing illegal break-ins against relatives 
and friends of Weather Underground fugitives. In another 
action, persons seeking damages for CIA opening of their mail 
were awarded $1,000 each in the case of Birnbaum v. United 
States. In still another case, suits were filed by the 
Socialis t Workers Party for damages and to prohibit FBI surveil¬ 
lance of its convention. A number of other cases have dealt 
with electronic surveillance and other issues affecting Consti¬ 
tutional rights of privacy. 

In addition to the cases listed, a large number of Freedom 
of Information Act suits have been initiated in federal courts 
seeking access to information in the hands of the intelligence 
agencies. Both the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy 
Act, but particularly the latter, have significantly increased 
the protection of individual citizens against encroachment by 
the government into their private lives. 

Results of Efforts to Reduce Surveillance 


The Commission is pleased to report that there has been a 
marked decline in domestic surveillance activities since 1975, 
according to testimony of officials of the government agencies 
involved, including the White House. Congressional bodies 
charged with surveillance oversight responsibilities have 
reached the same conclusion. The General Accounting Office (GAO) 
report, "FBI Domestic Intelligence Operations: An Uncertain 
Future" (November 9, 1977), concurred that the FBI's domestic 

intelligence operations have been reduced significantly both 
in scope and level. Private civil rights groups also agree 


53 






that there has been a drastic reduction in instances of domestic 
surveillance since the Watergate era. They point out, however, 
that because they lack all the facts, they cannot make exact, 
quantitative comparisons. 

Cone 1u sion 


There is no question that there has been a sharp decline in 
cases of domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens and groups in 
the past few years. This reduction has resulted from action 
in all three branches of the Federal Government to ensure that 
individual rights are no longer abused by government agencies 
acting beyond the scope of their authority. Notwithstanding 
the progress that has been achieved, most agree that further 
action is needed. The President's proposal for a new FBI 
charter limiting surveillance activities to strictly defined 
actions consistent both with national security interests and 
individual rights to privacy is an important step. The Commis¬ 
sion supports this initiative and looks forward to the construc¬ 
tive debate and discussion which will precede and strengthen 
the new law which will eventually be enacted. 

Reviewing U.S. obligations under the Helsinki Final Act, 
the Commission's investigation leads to several conclusions. 
First, abuses cited by critics which occurred before the docu¬ 
ment was signed cannot be regarded as violations of the Final 
Act. Second, by taking the corrective actions it has since 
the signing of the Act, the United States has acted in good 
faith to honor its commitments. In a sense, recognizing short¬ 
comings and taking positive actions to remedy them is as impor¬ 
tant in terms of compliance with the Helsinki agreement as 
having a good record to start with. Third, the United States 
recognizes that, despite the enormous progress achieved, further 
improvements are necessary. The President's new proposal and 
other developments give the Commission every reason to believe 
that these improvements will be carried out. 

POLITICAL PRISONERS 


One of the most important provisions of Principle VII 
specifies that CSCE states will promote and encourage the exer¬ 
cise of basic human rights, including civil and political 
rights. The United States has been criticized for its 
performance under this provision because of the incarceration 
of alleged "political prisoners" in American jails. 

According to these critics, people are sometimes imprisoned 
in the U.S. solely for their political beliefs. These charges 
emanate from a variety of sources, both domestic and foreign, 
including Amnesty International, other CSCE states and private 
domestic human rights organizations. The Soviet Union, for 
example, raised several specific cases of alleged U.S. political 


54 




prisoners at the 1977 CSCE review meeting in Belgrade and the 
Soviet and East European press have followed up with other 
char ges si nee t hen. 

In any discussion of whether there are "political 
prisoners" in U.S. prisons, critics cite the remarks of former 
U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young. In an interview in 1978 with 
the Paris daily, Le Matin, Young was quoted as saying: "...After 
all, in our prisons, too, there are hundreds, perhaps even 
thousands of people whom I would call political prisoners." 

But in a later interview with the Christian Science Monitor, 
Young said his remarks had been taken out ol context. He slTid 
he had used the term "political prisoner" in the broadest sense, 
apparently referring to those he believes are in U.S. prisons 
because their economic or social standing led them to commit 
crimes. He added, "We do a good job of dealing with political 
and religious freedom. But we are still weak in the economic 
area." From his remarks, it appears clear that Mr. Young did 
not have the usual concept of political prisoner (prisoner of 
conscience) in mind when he made his statement to Le Ma tin. 
Questions about social and economic inequities in U.S. society 
are discussed in another section of this report. 

The number of people alleged to be political prisoners 
ranges, according to various sources, from more than a thousand 
to just a handful. The charges in many cases are either too 
vague to investigate or not covered under the Final Act. For 
these reasons, the Commission concentrated on the allegations 
made by two sources. One source is Amnesty International, an 
organization with such an international reputation for honesty, 
objectivity and thoroughness that it was awarded the Nobel Peace 
Prize in 1977. As a second source, the Commission has considered 
the allegations made most frequently and prominently by other 
CSCE states. There is some overlap between the allegations 
made by Amnesty and those made by other signatories of the Final 
Act. 


In approaching this task, the Commission has checked the 
status of each case by contacting a number of organizations 
and individuals including the Justice Department, state 
officials, defense attorneys and civil rights groups. In 
addition, in the case of the Wilmington Ten, the Commission's 
General Counsel R. Spencer Oliver interviewed Reverend Benjamin 
Chavis, the only member still incarcerated. Many of the cases 
which follow are still involved in the legal process and entail 
a number of complex issues. For this reason, the Commission 
does not feel it is appropriate to comment in detail on the 
merits of these cases prior to their final resolution. 





T he Wilmington Ten 


A case that has received widespread domestic and interna¬ 
tional attention is that of the Wilmington Ten. Reverend Ben 
Chavis, one of the 10 defendants, addressed an open appeal at 
the Belgrade review meeting. In addition, the convictions and 
incarcerations of the Wilmington Ten were raised at the meeting 
by one of the CSCE participants as violations of the Final Act. 
In April of 1979, Commission staff members met with Reverend 
Chavis in the Orange County detention facility of the North' 
Carolina State Department of Corrections. Later, they contacted 
the North Carolina Governor's chief counsel as well as Chavis' 
defense attorney. Commission staff had met earlier with Justice 
Department attorneys working on the case and received a detailed 
statement from the office of the Attorney General of North 
Carolina in August of 1978. 

In October of 1972, Reverend Chavis, eight black youths 
and one white woman were convicted of unlawfully burning a 
grocery store and of conspiring to assault emergency personnel 
attending the fire. These incidents occurred during a period 
of high racial tension in the Wilmington, North Carolina 
community. In a 35-page reported opinion, the North Carolina 
Court of Appeals upheld their convictions. State v. Chav i s, 

24 N.C.App. 148, 210 S.E.2d 555 (1974). Based on the appellate 
court's decision, the Supreme Court of North Carolina denied 
a petition for a writ of certiorari in May of 1975. 287 N.C. 

261, 214 S.E.2d 4T4 ( 1 97 5j~. In January of 1976, the Supreme 
Court of the United States declined to review the action of the 
State courts. 423 U.S. 1080 (1976). The Wilmington Ten began 
serving their sentences in February of 1976. 

In February of 1976, the defendants petitioned the United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina 
for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a judicial inquiry into 
the legality of a person's restraint by the government. While 
the action was pending, two of the State's key witnesses 
recanted their trial testimony declaring they had lied at the 
trial. One of the witnesses was allegedly threatened as a 
result of his recantation. These developments prompted U.S. 
Attorney General Griffin Bell to order a Justice Department 
investigation. Though its inquiries did not support a criminal 
prosecution, the Department did discover possible improprieties 
on the part of both state and federal officials in obtaining 
testimony from trial witnesses. It continued its investiga¬ 
tion into misconduct by the prosecution, including bribery of 
witnesses. A grand jury was convened to determine whether the 
civil rights of the Wilmington Ten had been violated. During 
the grand jury proceedings, a third witness recanted his testi¬ 
mony for the first time. The grand jury determined that 


56 






evidence was not sufficient to support further action under 
existing criminal civil rights statutes. 18 United States 
Code, Sections 241, 242. 

While the February of 1976 habeas cor pus petition was pend¬ 
ing in federal court, the Wilmington Ten also petitioned the 
North Carolina County Superior Court in which they were origin¬ 
ally tried and convicted for a new trial. This motion was based 
on the witnesses' recantations. After a two-week hearing, the 
judge ruled that the Constitutional rights of the defendants 
had not been violated. This decision was unsuccessfully 
appealed to both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court 
of Nor t h Caro 1ina. 

Shortly after this denial of a motion for new trial by 
the county Superior Court, supporters of the Wilmington Ten 
sought other avenues of appeal -- petitions to the Governor 
of North Carolina and requests for further intervention by the 
Justice Department. The attorney for the defendants formally 
petitioned Governor Hunt on the Wilmington Ten's behalf for 
pardons of innocence. After examination of the case, including 
an inquiry into some of the facts by the State Bureau of Inves¬ 
tigation and affirmation by the State appellate court of the 
local court's ruling on the motion for new trial, the Governor 
concluded that "there was a fair trial, the jury made the right 
decision and the appellate courts reviewed it properly and ruled 
correctly." 

In January of 1978, the Governor determined that the 
sentences given the nine defendants still incarcerated should 
be reduced by approximately one-third. The decision to reduce, 
rather than commute these sentences, was defended in an exten¬ 
sive explanation and documentation of the State's case against 
the Wilmington Ten sent to the Commission in August of 1978. 

In this material, Assistant Attorney General Richard League 
pointed out that "a white person convicted of the same type 
crime against a black business a year later in Wilmington got 
life imprisonment." 

In accordance with North Carolina law which provides that 
all prisoners are eligible for parole after serving one-fourth 
of their minimum sentence, the eight youths were all released 
in 1978. As a result of Hunt's actions, Reverend Chavis will 
be eligible for parole in January of 1980. 

As a second alternate avenue of appeal, 60 members of 
Congress formally urged Attorney General Griffin Bell on June 
17, 1977, to take further action in the case. Their letter 
specifically recommended that the Department file ami cus 
curiae or "friend of the court" briefs with the North Carolina 
Appea1s court. This court was considering arguments to reverse 
the county Superior Court's refusal to grant a new trial. The 


57 








members also recormnended that such a brief be filed with the 
United States District Court in Raleigh, North Carolina, the 
Court before which the February of 1976 habeas cor pus petition 
was still pending. In addition, they asked that the Department 
recommend to the Governor of North Carolina that the 10 defen¬ 
dants be pardoned. 

Continuing their exhaustive investigation and review of 
the case, the Justice Department took an unprecedented step 
in November of 1978 to present evidence it had obtained to the 
federal court hearing the habeas corpus petition. It filed 
an 89-page am i c u s brief with the federal district court which 
highlighted evidence found during the Justice Department and 
grand jury investigations. The brief dealt with the facts that 
the state's three key witnesses recanted their testimony, that 
"there is certain independent evidence which would corroborate 
the untruthfu1ness of their trial testimony, each of those wit¬ 
nesses has asserted that he was offered some inducement for 
his trial testimony, and the record contains evidence of unusual 
treatment afforded these witnesses by the prosecution." Though, 
as stated above, this evidence was not sufficient to support 
criminal charges against the prosecution, it did appear to the 
Department sufficient to merit a new trial. After reviewing 
voluminous court records and transcripts, particularly those 
of the county Superior Court, the Department felt: "Under the 
circumstances, it was incumbent upon the state court presiding 
over the post-conviction hearing to give more than passing con¬ 
sideration to the petitioners' contention." 

In April of 1979, the Justice Department filed a second 
brief in response to a 112-page memorandum and recommendation 
prepared by a United States magistrate for the federal district 
court. The magistrate, an official responsible for assisting 
the court, concluded that the Wilmington Ten were fairly con¬ 
victed. This conclusion was based also on a 71-page memorandum 
and recommendation filed earlier with the court. The Department 
reiterated the concern expressed in its first brief that there 
were "serious questions about the character of the evidence 
on which the conviction of these petitioners relies." 

On June 20, 1979, the federal district court rejected the 
habeas cor pus petitions filed by the Wilmington Ten in February 
of 1976. There were several reasons that the proceedings lasted 
for such a long time. One was the unusual intervention by the 
United States Government. The federal court also considered 
decisions made on motions and other actions filed concurrently 
by the Wilmington Ten in the North Carolina State courts. U.S. 
District Judge Franklin T. Dupree issued a memorandum of his 
decision on June 19, 1979, which rejected the notion that the 
Wilmington Ten had been unfairly convicted: 


58 






"As stated before, the trial was not a perfect 
one, and in light of hindsight, doubtless many 
of the objections which have been raised could 
have and probably should have been obviated by 
different rulings at the trial level. That there 
was substantial credible evidence, both direct 
and circumstantial, supporting the jury's verdict, 
however, this court believes to be manifest 
on the entire record. The suggestion that to try 
ten persons for conspiracy to commit arson and 
assault on peace officers, crimes which indis¬ 
putably were committed by someone, is to try 
them for 'political' crimes, is simply untenable." 

The Commission highly commends the Justice Department, 
particularly Attorney General Griffin Bell and Assistant 
Attorney General Drew S. Days, III, for their vigorous efforts 
on behalf of Justice in the case of the Wilmington Ten. The 
arguments made as ami c us curiae to the U.S. District Court raise 
serious questions about FHe TaTrness of the defendant's convic¬ 
tions. At the same time, the Commission recognizes the 
paramount importance of an independent, impartial judiciary 
allowed to decide each case on its merits. 

Allegations from Amnesty International 

In November of 1977, Amnesty International released the 
names of 16 individuals who it felt were or may have been jailed 
in the United States because of their "beliefs, origins, or 
involvement with unpopular political groups." Shortly there¬ 
after, Representative and CSCE Commissioner Millicent Fenwick 
(R.-N.J.) examined these allegations regarding American "prison¬ 
ers of conscience" and asked appropriate U.S. and state 
attorneys general to explain the status of each case. Amnesty's 
list of individual cases has changed several times since 1977 
because of its policy to drop all investigation of a case as 
soon as the alleged "prisoner of conscience" is released from 
jail whether by pardon, parole or completion of sentence. The 
Commission has decided to review all cases raised by Amnesty 
since 1977, including individuals released from prison, because 
several East European CSCE signatory states continue to charge 
that these cases raise serious questions about violations of 
human rights in the United States. 

The Commission wishes to make special note of the distinc¬ 
tions that the Amnesty International Secretariat has drawn 
between prisoners "adopted," cases "under investigation by 
Annesty International groups," and cases "under investigation 
by the International Secretariat." The status assigned indivi¬ 
dual cases seems to represent the amount of evidence accumu¬ 
lated, the extent of review given this evidence and the depth 
of conviction that the person named has been incarcerated 


59 




because of his or her political beliefs or racial or ethnic 
origin. Though there are some clear criteria for "adoption" 

-- for example, the prisoner must have neither used nor advoca¬ 
ted violence -- the organization has expressed its difficulty 
in identifying prisoners of conscience "in a country where there 
is no overt political imprisonment, but where it is suspected 
that many people may be 'framed' on criminal charts because 
of their political activity or ethnic origin...." As a result 
of this difficulty, many of Amnesty's U.S. cases seem to remain 
in the "under investigation" category without a final determina¬ 
tion that the individual is or is not a prisoner of conscience. 
As indicated above, an individual released from prison while 
"under investigation" by Amnesty has not been deemed a prisoner 
of conscience. Amnesty International merely closes that indivi¬ 
dual's file without determining whether the circumstances of 
prosecution or conviction would have eventually warranted his 
or her "adopt ion." 

The cases raised by Amnesty International, as well as those 
mentioned later in this section of the compliance report, 
involve individuals charged with very specific and serious 
crimes. In each instance preliminary investigations by the 
prosecution revealed evidence sufficient for a grand jury to 
indict the accused. In every case the convicted defendants 
have been given repeated opportunities to air allegations of 
error at trial or on appeal. Numerous avenues of appeal allow 
each defendent to support his or her arguments that justice 
has been denied. Judges and juries must look to the totality 
of facts and circumstances to determine, on a case by case 
basis, whether an individual's rights have been protected. 
Reasonable persons can, of course, reach different conclusions 
after reviewing the same facts and circumstances; procedures 
exist, therefore, to review lower courts' findings and to intro¬ 
duce new evidence or legal arguments not available during 
initial court proceedings. 

The Commission has reviewed the cases against the Wilming¬ 
ton Ten, Imari Obadele, also known as Richard Bullock Henry, 
the Charlotte Three, David Rice and Edward Poindexter, Gary 
Tyler^ Lee Otis Johnson, Eva Kutas and Ray Eaglin, Elmer Pratt, 
Russell Means, Richard Mohowk and Paul Skyhorse, Leonard 
Peltier, and Dennis Banks. It has queried the Civil Rights 
Division of the Department of Justice, state attorneys general, 
defense attorneys, and in some cases the accused themselves, 
as to their status. The results of these inquiries to date 
are as foilows: 


13. Amnesty International Annual Report: 1977, page 162. 


60 




Cases "Adopted" 


-- Nine of the Wilmington Ten, discussed in detail above, 
have been released on parole. Reverend Ben Chavis, currently 
enrolled at Duke University Divinity School on a study-re1ease 
program, will be eligible for parole in January of 1980. 

-- Imari Obadele, president of an organization called the 
Republic of New Africa (RNA) claiming to be an independent 
foreign nation, was convicted in 1973 of conspiracy to assault 
a federal officer. He is serving a 10-year sentence and will 
be eligible for parole in February of 1980. The Supreme Court 
denied Obadele's request for review of his case in 1977. 

The conviction stems from a 1971 shoot-out at RNA head¬ 
quarters in Jackson, Mississippi, between local police, federal 
agents and members of the Republic of New Africa. One police 
officer was killed; one FBI agent and another local policeman 
were injured. Federal and local officials came to the head¬ 
quarters at 6:30 a.m. to issue a federal felony fugitive 
warrant and three local misdemeanor arrest warrants. Amnesty 
concludes that "because Obadele was not present at the head¬ 
quarters during the surprise police raid and therefore could 
not have had any prior knowledge of the assault," he was found 
guilty on the basis of his association with the RNA. 

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned that under 
federal conspiracy laws, Obadele's "presence and participation 
in the shoot-out were not necessary to support his conviction 
under the conspiracy count.... The overwhelming evidence shows 
that this tragedy would not have taken place except for the 
work of Obadele ." Obadele had supervised various "security" 
and "combat-win procedures" to be used in the event of a "raid" 
on the RNA headquarters. United States v. James, 528 F.2d 999 
(5th Cir. 1976). 

In response to a complaint about FBI harassment of the 
RNA, the Chief of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights 
Division .of the Justice Department personally reviewed the FBI's 
Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) files in 1975 with 
respect to Obadele and the RNA. He found no evidence that the 
FBI was criminally responsible for any misconduct against the 
RNA or its members. The Civil Rights Division has decided to 
review the case again to determine whether there is some legal 
basis for Justice Department involvement. Various appeals are 
pending on behalf of Obadele and co-defendant Addis Ababa (also 
known as Dennis Shi11ingford). 

-- T.J. Reddy and James Earl Grant, Jr., two of the 
"Charlotte Three" convicted in North Carolina courts in 1972 
of a 1968 stable burning, have been released on parole as the 
result of a reduction of their sentences by order of Governor 
James Hunt of North Carolina. Both men had petitioned the 
Governor for executive clemency after exhausting all legal 
appeals through state and federal courts. Charles Parker, the 


61 



third defendant in the case, was paroled in December of 1975. 

He was convicted on separate charges of larceny in April of 
1978, but was paroled again on March 8, 1979. 

Amnesty International has concluded that charges were 
brought against these men because of their political involvement 
in the Charlotte community- They cite evidence that the state's 
chief prosecution witnesses received large amounts of money 
and promises of immunity from prosecution in exchange for their 
incriminating testimony. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 
addressed this issue extensively in its opinion denying the 
defendants' petition for federal habeas corpus relief. Reddy 
v. Jones, 572 F.2d 979 (4th Cir. 1 977). The Department of 
Justice Civil Rights Division indicates that there appears to 
be merit to the petitioners' claims. 

Cases "Under Investigation by Amnesty International Groups" 

-- David Rice and Edward Poindexter were convicted in 
Nebraska State courts for the first degree murder of an Gnaha 
police officer. The officer was killed by a bomb explosion 
while investigating an empty house in response to an anonymous 
telephone call. They are serving life sentences and are not 
eligible for parole unless there are commutations of their 
sentences by Nebraska State authorities. 

Both Rice and Poindexter were leaders in the Omaha chapter 
of the National Committee to Combat Fascism (NCCF). Duane Peak, 
a 15-year-old and the state's key witness, was also a member 
of the NCCF. A search for the prime suspect, Peak, led police 
to Rice's home where, after obtaining a warrant to search 
for explosives and illegal weapons, they discovered dynamite, 
blasting caps and other materials used in making bombs. Rice 
and Poindexter's convictions were based in large part on this 
evidence. 

In seeking to overturn his conviction, Rice challenged 
the Constitutionality of the police search which led to the 
incriminating evidence introduced at his trial. Though the 
Federal District Court of Nebraska and the Eighth Circuit Court 
of Appeals both declared the search unconstitutional, the U.S. 
Supreme Court reversed the rulings and held that "where the 
state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation 
of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted 
federal habeas cor pus relief on the ground that evidence 
obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure was 
introduced at the trial." Stone v. Pow e11, 428 U.S. 465 at 
494 (1976). After reviewing the facts of the case, as they 
relate to this issue, the Justice Department told the State 
Department: "The search of Mr. Rice's residence, declared 
unconstitutional by the federal court and the Eighth Circuit, 
was apparently based primarily on Mr. Rice's political 
involvement. Neither he nor Mr. Poindexter have any legal 
remedies available to them to challenge this search and 
vindicate their Constitutional rights in light of the Supreme 


62 







Court ruling in Stone v . Powe11 , suora." While judicial 
remedies may not exist to require exclusion of this evidence 
in a fair trial proceeding, legislative remedies have, in fact, 
been introduced which will effectively override Stone v. 

Powe11 and conceivably have a bearing on the convictions. 

H.R. 7201 has been referred to the Subconmni t tee on Courts, Civil 
Liberties and the Administration of Justice of the House 
Judiciary Committee. 

Amnesty alleges that Peak had "admitted placing the bomb 
and calling the police to the site. Shortly after the killing, 
he had told his sister he was responsible and that he had acted 
alone- After his arrest, he made two or three sworn statements 
to the police, none of which implicated David Rice or Edward 
Poindexter.... There is reason to believe that the deputy chief 
prosecutor came to an arrangement with Duane Peak's lawyer by 
which Peak would be allowed to plead guilty to lesser charges 
in exchange for turning state's evidence against Rice or Poin¬ 
dexter." Peak admitted before the jury that he had made the 
phone call and planted the bomb in the suitcase; his testimony 
implicated Rice and Poindexter in the plot. The Nebraska 
Supreme Court rejected Rice's argument that this evidence, 
together with the physical evidence discovered at Rice's home, 
was insufficient to convict him. State v. Rice, 188 Neb. 728, 
199 N.W. 2d 480 (1972). 

Though the Supreme Court denied Rice's petition for relief 
based on his Fourth Amendment claim, he has not exhausted all 
legal remedies. He is currently appealing a decision by the 
district court of Nebraska that dismissed his petition for 
ha beas cor pus relief. Edward Poindexter has no appeals pending 
at this tTme. 

-- Gary Tyler was convicted of first degree murder and 
sentenced to death under a mandatory penalty for the fatal 
shooting of a white youth during a school busing riot. He was 
resentenced in March of 1977 to life imprisonment after 
Louisana's death penalty was declared unconstitutional by the 
United States Supreme Court. At the time of the shooting, Tyler 
was 16 years old. Under Louisiana law, a juvenile committing 
a crime of this nature must be tried in criminal court. 

Amnesty formally decided to investigate Tyler's case after 
the State's key witness, Natalie Blanks, recanted her testi¬ 
mony. The Supreme Court of Louisiana examined the issue of 
this witness' credibility and concluded that "Natalie's testi¬ 
mony at trial was proven reliable by her statement to the police 
giving the location of the hidden gun.... Other evidentiary 
facts, both physical and testimonial, also support Natalie's 
trial testimony.... Where credibility is involved the trier 
of fact is undoubtedly better situated to make the determination 
...." State v. Tyler, 342 So.2d 574 at 588 (La. 1977). 

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Tvler's petition of writ 
of certiorari or review on Mav 16, 1977. He subsequently filed 

a petition for habeas corpus relief which is pending before 


63 









the U*S. D'<s tr ict rmirt for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice 
reviewed Tvler's case in January of 1978, but closed its file 
on Februarv 9, 1979, because of lack of evidence to justifv 
a criminal civil rights investigation. The Division plans to 
review the habeas corpus petition filed in Julv of 1978 in order 
to determine whether there is any basis for further Justice 
Department involvement. 

-- Lee Otis Johnson was convicted on burglary charges in 
1975 and sentenced to 17 years in prison. The case against 
him is "under investigation" by Amnesty International, who 
"adopted" him in 1970. At that time. Amnestv felt a 30-vear 
sentence given to Johnson for passing one marijuana cigarette 
to an undercover police agent was attributable to his involve¬ 
ment with the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). 
Johnson was released in 1972 following a federal district judge 
ruling that he be released or retried within 90 days primarily 
because pre-trial publicity had jeopardized his Constitutional 
right to a fair trial 

The l 97 *5 criminal conviction was sustained by the Texas 
Criminal Court of Appeals in 1977 and then appealed to the 
United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the 
petition for review of the case. Johnson v. Texas, 434 U.S. 

997 (1977). 

Amnesty's allegation that Johnson's written confession 
resulted from coercion was not raised by his counsel during 
the trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, in discuss¬ 
ing the effectiveness of the attorney who represented Johnson 
at trial, explained: "At the Ja c kson v. Denno hearing a pre¬ 
trial hearing required by statute in Texas to determine whether 
a confession is admissable appellant told a highly unbelieve- 
able story as to his beatings and mistreatment at the hands 
of the officers. The court did not believe him, and it may 
be that counsel believed appellant's credibility would have 
been prejudiced by repeating such account in the jury's 
presence." Texas v. Johnson, No. 53110 (Tex. Crim. App., filed 
June 1, 1977*n AT this pre-trial hearing, the State had to 

produce evidence that the confession was not coerced. 

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department reports 
that it has no record of a request for a criminal civil rights 
investigation. The reason for this, presumably, is that the 
case was under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas and no 
allegations of possible civil rights violation were brought 
to the Division's attention. 

-- Eva Kutas and Ray Eaglin, convicted in 1974 of harboring 
and concealing and conspiring to harbor and conceal an escaped 
federal prisoner, have been released from prison. Amnesty 
alleges that the evidence used to convict the defendants was 
insufficient and suggests that their prosecution resulted from 
their involvement in the Eugene Coalition, an organization 


64 




"involved in community cooperatives, prisoners' rights, and 
third world struggles." Kutas completed her sentence and 
Eaglin was released on parole before Amnesty was able to review 
transcripts of the court proceedings. 

Arguments disputing the sufficiency of the evidence used 
to convict Kutas and the effectiveness of the attorney who 
represented her at trial were heard by the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals and addressed in Uni ted States v._K utas, 542 F.2d 

527 (9th Cir. 1976). Eaglin also raised these issues in appeal¬ 
ing his conviction to the Ninth Circuit in United States v. 
Eaglin, 571 F.2d 1069 (9th Cir. 1977). To the Commission's 
knowiedge, neither defendant produced evidence to substantiate 
their claim that Joan Coberly, a co-conspirator, falsely 
implicated them. Amnesty felt that her testimony was not 
credible because she was allegedly "given immunity from all 
federal prosecution in exchange for her testimony." 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristine Olson Rogers of Portland, 
Oregon, informed the Commission that additional evidence has 
been discovered which further substantiates Kutas and Eaglin's 
participation in the crime. The Civil Rights Division of the 
Justice Department informed the Commission that it had "no 
record or knowledge of this matter." 

Cases "Under Investigation by the International 

Secretariat" 

-- Elmer Pratt was convicted in 1972 of murdering and 
robbing a Santa Monica woman in 1968. He is currently serving 
a life sentence in San Quentin prison in California. The 
evidence introduced at trial included positive identification 
of Pratt by the victim's spouse. 

Amnesty's interest in this case stems from Pratt's former 
involvement with the Black Panther Party. He served as Deputy 
Defense Minister and one of six members of the Panther National 
Committee. He was convicted of conspiracy and possession of 
illegal weapons following a four-hour shoot-out between Los 
Angeles police and Black Panthers at Panther headquarters in 
December of 1969. While serving his term, Pratt was charged 
and convicted of the murder and robbery which had occurred four 
years earlier. Amnesty has raised questions about the accuracy 
of the identification made by the victim's spouse. 

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department 
reported that it has no record or knowledge of the case. 

Appeals to the California Supreme Court in 1973 were unsuccess¬ 
ful. Pratt has not appealed his case to the federal courts. 

Margaret Ryan, attorney for Pratt, informed t he Conrmi s s i on 
that a petition for habeas corpus or a motion for a new trial 
will be filed based on newly discovered evidence and/or evidence 
that was wrongfully withheld from Pratt by the prosecution. 

Pratt maintains that FBI surveillance files withheld from him 


65 





at the time of his trial could document his presence at Black 
Panther meetings in Oakland, California, during the time of 
the Santa Monica murder. 

-- Russell Means, National Director of the American Indian 
Movement, was paroled on July 27, 1979. He began serving a 
four-year sentence in November of 1977 for "rioting to obstruct 
justice." The statute under which he was convicted was repealed 
one year later but was not effective retroactively. 

Amnesty International did not give the Commission their 
specific reasons for considering this case. Means has gained 
national and international attention because of his leadership 
in the American Indian Movement (AIM) and the 1973 seige of 
Wounded Knee, South Dakota. The charges against him for his 
participation in the seige were dismissed on September 16, 1974, 

in large part because of inadequate handling of the case by 
the prosecution. United States v. Means, 383 F.Supp. 389 (W.D. 
So.Dak. 1974). Hfs recent conviction stemmed from a riot which 
occurred during the Wounded Knee trials. 

When queried about possible civil rights violations in 
this case, including allegations that Means was threatened by 
guards while in prison, the Justice Department informed the 
Commission: "The latest incident was an assault on Means by 
another inmate, which we have no authority to prosecute. No 
evidence has been brought to our attention indicating inaction 
by local authorities.... Russell Means was imprisoned in July 
of 1978 after having exhausted all legal remedies." He served 
one year of his four year term and was involved in a work 
release program from November of 1978 until his release. 

-- Richard Mohawk and Paul Skyhorse were acquitted of 
murder charges by a California court on May 25, 1978. Amnesty 

was involved in this case as a result of claims that these men 
were prosecuted because of their membership in the American 
Indian Movement (AIM) and were mistreated and denied adequate 
medical assistance by Ventura County officials while awaiting 
trial. Amnesty dropped the case as soon as Skyhorse and Mohawk 
were acquitted, but others continued to point out the fact that 
the defendants spent more time in pre-trial detention than any 
accused in California’s history. The Civil Rights Division 
of the Justice Department informed the Commission that no 
complaints were ever brought to its attention by the defendants 
or their attorneys. However, the Indian Rights Section of this 
Division did respond to letters from persons and organizations 
supporting the defendants' cause. 

The Commission learned that during the time Skyhorse and 
Mohawk were incarcerated, the Constitutional Rights Section 
of the Los Angeles Office of the State Attorney General was 
conducting an independent investigation of general abuses in 
the administration of justice in Ventura County. The defendants 
were transferred to Los Angeles County jail when a change of 
venue motion was granted by the court. When asked about the 


66 



length of time Skyhorse and Mohawk spent in pre-trial detention, 
a Ventura County Assistant Attorney General explained that the 
defendants had caused the delay: "In California, defendants 
have an absolute right to be tried within 60 days or have the 
charges against them dismissed. The trial date was postponed 
approximately five times and on each occasion the defendants 
had asked for a continuance, an^l on each occasion the prosecu¬ 
tion opposed the continuance." 

-- Leonard Peltier, a member of the American Indian Move¬ 
ment, was serving two consecutive life sentences for the murder 
of two FBI agents at Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South 
Dakota prior to his escape from federal prison on July 21, 

1979. Peltier has been listed by Amnesty's New York Office 
as a possible prisoner of conscience. 

The only allegation of miscarriage of justice brought to 
the Commission's attention involves the FBI's misuse of 
affidavits in securing Peltier's extradition fromCanada. The 
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this issue and con¬ 
cluded: "Peltier does not claim that he was extradited solely 
on the basis of Myrtle Poor Bear's affidavits or that the other 
evidence presented to the Canadian tribunal was insufficient 
to warrant extradition. It is clear from a review of the trial 
transcript that other substantial evidence of Peltier's 
involvement in the murders was presented in the extradition 
hearings...." United States v. Peltier, 585 F.2d 314 (8th Cir. 
1978). 

Peltier was convicted by a jury in the United States 
District Court of South Dakota on June 25, 1975, for the murders 
and in 1978 appealed this conviction to the Eighth Circuit Court 
of Appeals. As indicated above, the court affirmed his convic¬ 
tion on September 14, 1978, and denied a motion for rehearing 

on October 27, 1978 The United States Supreme Court denied 
Peltier's petition for review of his case on March 5, 1979. 

-- Dennis Banks, also a leader in the American Indian Move¬ 
ment, is free in California today. Amnesty dropped investiga¬ 
tion of the case in 1976 when Banks fled to California while 
released on bail. The Supreme Court of California held in March 
of 1978 that Governor Edmund G. Brown's refusal to extradite 
Banks to South Dakota was Constitutional. South Dakota v. 

Brown, 20 Cal.3d 765, 576 P.2d 473 (1978). Banks was convicted 
in South Dakota courts in 1975 on arson, riot and assault 
charges stemming from a 1973 incident in Custer, South Dakota. 

In its International Report: 1975-1976, Amnesty suggested 
that Banks had been prosecuted because of his involvement in 
AIM. Charges against Banks brought by the State of Oregon were 

14. Correspondence dated September 13, 1977, between Congressman 

Robert Lagomarsino (R.-Calif.) and Assistant Attorney 
General Michael Bradbury. 


67 









dismissed before trial by the federal judge hearing the case. 

The only other prosecution of which the Commission is aware 
resulted from Banks' participation in the s e ige of Wounded Knee, 
South Dakota. The federal district judge hearing the case 
against Banks and Russell Means dismissed the charges because 
of mishandling of the prosecution by the government attorneys. 

United States v. Means , 383 F.Supp. 389 (W.D.So.Dak. 1974). 

Allegations from Other CSCE States 

Cases of alleged political prisoners raised by other CSCE 
states during and after the Belgrade review meeting include: 
Johnny Harris, Delbert Tibbs, Assata Shakur (also known as 
Joanne Chesimard) and George Merritt. Most of these individuals 
are in the process of appealing their convictions. It should 
be noted that these allegations have generally gone little 
beyond naming the individual. They have lacked the specificity 
of charges made by Amnesty International. Despite the hazy 
nature of some of the allegations, the Commission has been able 
to determine the following facts: 

-- Johnny Harris has been sentenced to death for murdering 
a prison guard while serving a life sentence. Soviet critics 
have contended that he is a political victim of U.S. racism. 

In keeping with the organization's blanket condemnation of 
capital punishment, Amnesty regards Harris as a victim of what 
it has defined as cruel and unusual punishment -- not as a 
political prisoner of conscience. The date of execution has 
not been set because of numerous appeals pending before state 
and federal courts. 

Harris was sentenced to five consecutive life sentences 
in 1971 after pleading guilty to one count of rape and four 
counts of robbery. The attorney now handling his case contends 
that Harris was persuaded to plead guilty to these charges by 
incompetent counsel. These allegations of malpractice by the 
trial attorney are being litigated in the 10th Judicial Circuit 
in Jefferson County, Alabama. 

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed Harris' conviction 
and sentence in 1977. In March of 1978 and February of 1979, 
Harris filed petitions in the 28th Judicial Circuit in Baldwin 
County which allege that he was denied his right to a fair 
trial because members of the juries which indicted and convicted 
him were unconstitutionally selected and because the outcome 
of his trial was influenced by prejudicial pre-trial publicity. 
The petitions also allege that the prosecution unconstitu¬ 
tionally withheld evidence favorable to Harris' defense, that 
prison officials suppressed testimony of a witness which would 
have exculpated Harris and that Harris was unconstitutionally 
denied effective assistance of counsel during the murder trial. 
Finally, they challenge the death sentence on grounds that "its 
application is based upon a pattern and practice of invidious 


68 




discrimination based on race and sex." These appeals are still 
pending before the court. Should the petitions be denied by 
the Alabama Circuit Court, numerous avenues of appeal remain 
open to Harris. 

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department reports 
that it has "...already reviewed allegations that there was 
a state-engineered conspiracy to use perjured testimony against 
Harris." Its attorneys examined "the transcript of the state 
murder trial of Johnny Harris in 1975, transcripts of other 
individuals prosecuted for participation in the Atmore uprising 
of January of 1974," Justice Department records concerning the 
death of one of Harris' co-inmates during that riot, and a 
recent affidavit of another co-inmate concerning Harris' 
culpability in the murder of the prison guard. They did not 
find any basis for a criminal civil rights investigation but 
have stated: "If additional information is provided to us 
indicating that there is in fact a basis for further 
investigation, we will revisit the matter and initiate 
appropriate action." 

-- Delbert Tibbs is out of prison on bail while awaiting 
a second decision on his case by the Florida Supreme Court. 

He was convicted of rape and murder charges in 1974 and was 
sentenced to death one year later. The Florida Supreme Court 
ruled in 1977 that Tibbs should be either released or retried 
because the evidence used to convict him was not sufficient. 

In July of 1978, a Florida Circuit Court Judge dismissed the 
charges against Tibbs in light of constitutional protections 
against double jeopardy -- that is, placing a person in jeopardy 
of conviction twice for the same offense. The Second District 
Court of Appeals reversed this ruling based on a different 
interpretation of this constitutional protection and directed 
a new trial. As noted above, Tibbs is in the process of 
appealing this last decision to the Florida Supreme Court. 

-- Assata Shakur is serving a life sentence for the first 
degree murder of a New Jersey State trooper. She has received 
special attention in the press of Eastern CSCE countries because 
of her former activities in the Black Liberation Army. Her 
participation in the shoot-out on the New Jersey Turnpike is 
not disputed. Unsubstantiated allegations have been made, how¬ 
ever, that Shakur is a victim of a nationwide governmental plot 
to persecute black activists. While Shakur was arrested and 
charged with robbery on three occasions from 1973 to 1977, she 
was acquitted by the courts each time. She is currently appeal¬ 
ing her murder conviction on a number of grounds including 
errors in the jury selection process and in the trial court's 
denial of a change of venue motion. These alleged errors 
resulted from prejudicial pre-trial and during-trial publicity. 


69 


-- George Merritt was convicted in October of 1967 of the 
murder of a Plainfield, New Jersey, police officer. In 1972 
Merritt's conviction was reversed and a new trial was ordered 
by the New Jersey Supreme Court on several grounds, one of which 
was that instructions to the jury on conspiracy charges were 
misleading. State v. Merritt, 61 N.J. 377, 294 A.2d 609 (1972). 
A second trial was held Tn F974 and Merritt was again found 
guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life 
imprisonment. On appeal, this second conviction was reversed 
and a new trial was ordered once again. In September of 1977, 
Merritt was tried by a jury for the third time and was again 
convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. This third 
conviction was upheld by the New Jersey Appellate Division on 
March 13, 1979. The New Jersey Supreme Court denied a peti¬ 
tion for review of the case on May 30, 1979. 

Merritt has served 10 years of his life sentence and will 
be eligible to be considered for parole in 1983 or 1984. 

General allegations have been made that Merritt is a political 
prisoner whose appeals for clemency are being ignored by the 
Federal Government and by the Governor of New Jersey, Brendan 
Byrne. 

Governor Byrne denied Merritt's petition for executive 
clemency in January of 1979 because the issues Merritt was rais¬ 
ing had not been resolved by the courts. He indicated at that 
time, however, that if the court's opinion raised additional 
issues, he would then waive the two-year period usually required 
before filing a second petition for executive clemency- As 
of July of 1979, Merritt has not filed a second petition. 

Role of the Justice Department 

After reviewing the comprehensive examination of the 
Wilmington Ten case by the Justice Department, the Corrmission 
is concerned that similar investigations have not been initiated 
in other cases where the possibility exists that individuals 
may have been convicted of a crime because of their political 
beliefs. The Commission requested information on 16 other 
alleged political prisoner cases from the Civil Rights Division 
of the Justice Department. Apparently, in no other instance 
has the Department taken such extensive action. In very few 
of the cases had a criminal civil rights investigation been 
initiated, nor did any of those that were conducted lead to 
any legal action. Furthermore, the Civil Rights Division had 
no file on or knowledge of many of the cases. 

In responding to these points, the Department stated that 
most of the cases submitted did not involve criminal civil 
rights matters under its jurisdiction. The Department explained 
that "our investigation of some of these cases has been very 
limited due to the narrow scope of our jurisdiction to prosecute 
violations of civil rights in which the perpetrator is acting 
under color of law or as part of a conspiracy to deprive a 


70 




citizen of his or her rights. There may well be, therefore, 
human rights violations over which we have no jurisdiction and 
also very little information." 

No other federal agency, including the U.S. Civil Rights 
Commission, appears to have legal responsibility or authority 
to investigate claims that individuals' Constitutional or statu¬ 
tory rights have been violated in the course of state or federal 
proceedings. As the Civil Rights Division's activity in the 
Wilmington Ten case demonstrates, proof of willful misconduct 
by state or federal officials is not required for the Justice 
Department to enter a case. 

Justice Department officials have been careful to downplay 
the significance of the ami cus c uriae role adopted in the 
Wilmington Ten case. They say that prior Department involvement 
enabled it to demonstrate a direct "federal interest" and thus 
appeal on the defendant's behalf as a friend of the court. 

In testimony before the Commission, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General John Huerta stated: "In most state criminal proceedings 
...the Department has no authority to investigate or otherwise 
become involved in circumstances surrounding the prosecution." 

In these circumstances, given the need to examine more cases of 
possible civil rights violations, it appears that the Justice 
Department requires expansion of its investigative authority 
for cases which do not fall clearly within existing statutory 
guidelines. 

It is possible that the Civil Rights Division's initial 
comparison of U-S. civil rights statutes with international laws 
may enable the Department to formulate a set of principles or 
guidelines under which possible violations of binding interna¬ 
tional standards would constitute a federal interest. Estab¬ 
lishing such an interest may enable the Department to enter 
certain cases as an ami cus c uriae. The successful development 
of this concept woulH not onTy permi t the Justice Department 
to take a more effective role in safeguarding human rights 
domestically but also would improve American awareness of and 
compliance with the Helsinki Final Act and other international 
agreements. 

In light of U.S. commitments under the Final Act and other 
international agreements, the Commission feels the Justice 
Department does not devote sufficient resources to the task of 
monitoring possible human rights violations. The assignment of a 
team of lawyers to assess human rights complaints received from 
domestic and international sources and to arrange FBI investiga¬ 
tions of these matters where appropriate would be a possible 
solution to this problem within present statutory guidelines. 

As stated in the introduction to this section, initial efforts 
by the Justice Department to establish a mechanism to handle 
alleged violations seem promising. However, additional informa- 


71 




t i on is needed to determine whether sufficient grounds exist 
to warrant federal involvement in these cases and to decide 
what types of federal action would be most effective. 

Action by Other Groups 


Private civil rights organizations within the U.5. can 
take a more assertive and constructive role by publicly and 
officially raising the cases of individuals whom they feel have 
been deprived of their rights under the Helsinki Final Act. 
Complaints of human rights violations can be submitted directly 
to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department for 
investigation. As suggested in the introduction to this 
section, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is becoming more 
involved in monitoring individual human rights cases. Although 
the Civil Rights Commission does not have the authority to 
resolve individual human rights complaints, it could be particu¬ 
larly effective in bringing cases of possible violations to 
the attention of the Justice Department, which does have the 
power to enforce the law. 

Con e 1 usion 

It is appropriate in fulfilling our statutory mandate to 
monitor the compliance of all signatory states with the Final 
Act that the Commission look into specific cases and allegations 
regarding the United States' own performance. The Commission 
has therefore examined, to the extent possible within its 
limited means, allegations made by certain other CSCE states 
and other critics that the Wilmington Ten and others convicted 
of criminal activity are "political prisoners." We cannot state 
conclusively that there have not been varying degrees of racial 
discrimination or localized political motivation in accusing, 
arresting and prosecuting certain of these individuals or in 
meting out unusually harsh sentences. In the case of the 
Wilmington Ten, while criminal conduct did occur, there is at 
least a very strong possibility, supported by the action of 
the Justice Department, that Reverend Chavis and his co-defen¬ 
dants were convicted on evidence insufficient to establish their 
participation in the criminal activity. However, there is no 
evidence to indicate that the Federal Government, which bears 
primary responsibility for U.S. compliance with the Helsinki 
accords, has ever initiated or condoned such actions. 

In any event, it is clear that in every case researched 
by the C onrm ission, the defendants have been afforded full use 
of the protections and appellate opportunities of the American 
judicial system. It is evident from our review of the cases 
raised by Amnesty and other CSCE states that accused persons 
have full access to substantive and procedural safeguards and 
to legal counsel. In all cases, they are afforded numerous 
appeals by both state and federal courts. Several persons were 


72 




acquitted by juries; others had charges against them dismissed 
because a judge felt evidence submitted by the prosecution was 
inadequate. In still other cases, prisoners have successfully 
petitioned the executive branch of the state and/or federal 
government for clemency or pardon. The Wilmington Ten and the 
Charlotte Three are among the more widely publicized individuals 
who received early paroles as a result of their petitions. 

In addition to governmental protections of fundamental 
rights, private civil rights organizations, international groups 
such as Amnesty International, and the American press have been 
extensively involved on behalf of many alleged political 
prisoners. The interest of these groups and other safeguards 
including the right of hearing and appeal does not guarantee 
that there have not been and never will be cases of political 
prisoners in the U.S.. However, it does ensure that victims 
of injustice can find remedy and that such cases will not be 
buried and forgotten. 

The Commission is aware that most of these alleged 
political prisoners are members of minority groups which are 
on the lower end of the U.S. economic ladder. Countless studies 
of American social patterns reveal the problems still faced by 
blacks, Indians, Hispanics and other minority groups. While the 
United States continues to take extraordinary steps to increase 
respect for and protection of the rights of these minorities 
in accordance with Principle VII, there are pressures for even 
more rapid social and economic changes. Many of the individual 
prisoners whose cases have been publicized by Amnesty and by 
other CSCE states have been frustrated by what they regard as 
inadequate responses to these pressures. In all of these cases, 
juries of peers and numerous courts reviewing the evidence have 
concluded that the individual charged translated his or her 
frustration into criminal conduct. Civil and political activism 
and promotion of social change is fostered by the American 
system of government. However, criminal violence and depriva¬ 
tion of the rights of others in order to achieve change, however 
desirable, cannot be condoned. 

In light of the study conducted thus far into the cases of 
alleged political prisoners, the Commission felt the Justice 
Department should establish a more effective mechanism to review 
cases brought to its attention by the CSCE Commission, the State 
Department, Amnesty International, reputable private groups 
or other CSCE signatory states. Such a mechanism mi ght include 
the establishment of a special unit within the Civil Rights 
Division to investigate and respond to cases raised as possible 
violations of the Helsinki Final Act or other international 
agreements. The efforts to establish this mechanism should be 
closely coordinated with those of the Civil Rights Commission. 


73 


The Corrmission believes the Justice Department should 
examine its present authority and, if necessary, seek legisla¬ 
tive action which would expand its jurisdiction in civil rights 
investigations. Such legislation might include expansion of 
the Department's role as ami c us c uriae, that is, one who, though 
not party to a lawsuit, assists the court in deciding the case. 

Furthermore, in light of the issues raised by Amnesty 
International concerning the cases against David Rice and 
Richard Poindexter, the Commission encourages current efforts 
in Congress to define more clearly the areas in which federal 
courts must grant habeas co rpus relief. 

Finally, the Commission feels the Justice Department 
should consider reallocating its resources in order to be able 
to investigate cases such as those clearly controversial ones 
"adopted" by Amnesty International. These cases should be 
examined with the same vigor and commitment evident in the case 
of the Wilmington Ten. 

PERSONS IN CONFINEMENT 


The obligation of CSCE states regarding persons in deten¬ 
tion -- either in prison or in mental institutions -- is 
included in Principle VII of the Helsinki Final Act as it refers 
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The rights of 
persons in detention are also encompassed in other 
provisions of Principle VII relating to human rights and 
fundamental freedoms. 

The prison system and mental institutions in the United 
States present a number of serious problems which affect U.S. 
obligations under the CSCE Final Act. According to observers 
in other CSCE states and informed U.S. critics, the major 
problems include severely overcrowded institutions, inadequate 
programs for inmates and insufficient numbers of community-based 
programs. These charges, as well as other aspects of 
institutional care, will be discussed in this section. 

Most observers agree that improvement is needed in both 
the prison system and mental institutions. There is also 
agreement that efforts are being exerted on the federal, state 
and local levels to bring about improvement and that progress, 
particularly in the area of individual rights, is being made. 

At the same time, it seems fair to say that there is some 
disagreement on the best means to resolve remaining problems. 

The U.S. is trying to achieve greater respect for the 
rights of all persons, including those confined in penal and 
mental institutions. At the same time, further efforts are 
needed if the U.S. is to remain faithful to its CSCE 
corrmi tmen t s . 


74 





Prisons 


A wide range of domestic groups, as well as foreign 
observers, have called for prison reforms in the United States. 
These critics say that a variety of serious problems undermine 
the effectiveness of U.S. penal institutions and, in certain 
instances, deprive inmates of their rights. The major problems 
most commonly cited are: overcrowding, antiquated facilities, 
inadequate educational and training programs, insufficient 
administrative personnel, incidents of brutality, racial 
discrimination and inadequate attention to the needs of female 
and juvenile offenders. 

Overcrowded Conditions 

Overcrowding in prison facilities is a recognized problem 
in both state and federal prison systems. In 1977, a survey 
conducted in 30 states revealed that 155,078 inmates were incar¬ 
cerated in cell-space designed for 150,089. According to the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons, at the end of Fiscal Year 1978 there 
were 27,675 people living in facilities designed for 22,817. 
These overcrowded conditions meant that two inmates often lived 
in single cells, or that prisoners had to live in temporary 
space which was originally designated for recreational or other 
purposes. 

Alleviation of overcrowded facilities is a complex 
problem. One solution is to build more prisons. Since 1975, 
the Federal Bureau of Prisons has opened a number of new prisons 
and short-term detention centers. Today, there are 38 prisons, 
penitentiaries, prison camps and temporary detention facilities 
in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

Another method of dealing with the problem of overcrowding 
is through increased reliance on conrmun i ty-based programs. 

Such an approach is favored by advocates of more fundamental 
reform in the U.S. prison system. The Federal Bureau of Prisons 
has increasingly turned to such community-based programs as 
probation, parole, furloughs, work and study release, drug 
aftercare programs and corrmunity treatment centers. 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons' increased reliance on 
community facilities as a remedy to overcrowding has resulted 
in a considerable reduction in the population of federal 
prisons. For example, between 1977 and 1978, the proportion 
of all offenders discharged from prisons to federal and contract 
community centers rose from 39 to 46 percent. During the same 
period, the number of inmates participating in such federal 
programs increased from 7,500 to 10,000. In fact, of the 96,000 
current federal offenders, only 30 percent are in federal insti¬ 
tutions, while 70 percent are in community programs such as 
probation or parole. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has also 


75 



liberalized its furlough program. In 1975, 19,810 inmates were 

given furloughs; while in 1978, 24,500 inmates were granted 
furloughs to spend time with their families for study and for 
other purposes. 

By the end of 1978, the number of Federal Bureau of 
Prisons' contracts with halfway houses operated by state, local 
or private agencies had increased from 350 to 425. In addition, 
the Federal Bureau of Prisons runs nine community treatment 
centers, also known as halfway houses. These centers provide 
extensive services for certain offenders during the latter 
months of their terms. They are also used by people serving 
short sentences, for unsentenced offenders in the Pre-Trial 
Services Program and for others under community supervision. 

The personnel at these halfway houses assist people in building 
ties with the community, getting jobs, advancing their education 
and dealing with personal problems. Indeed, from 1975 to 1978, 
the number of inmates involved in federal community treatment 
centers and halfway houses rose from 2,750 to about 10,000. 

Racial Discrimination 

It is not surprising that prisons mirror larger socio¬ 
economic problems of U.S. society. According to the Law 
Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), there is a dispro¬ 
portionate number of blacks in the U.S. prison system. The 
most recent survey, conducted in 1974, estimates that of a total 
of 191,400 people in state correctional facilities, whites con¬ 
stituted a bare majority of 51 percent; blacks, although they 
are only 11 percent of the population at large, represented 
47 percent of the prison population. Other racial groups, 
mainly American Indians and Orientals, accounted for two percent 
of the prison population. 

A survey conducted by LEAA in 1972 revealed that bail had 
been denied to about one-fourth of all inmates awaiting trial 
and that bail status was in close relation to the severity of 
the alleged crime. For example, 54.8 percent of all bail 
refusals were in cases of charges of murder and kidnapping. 

Thus, it seems that denial of bail is more closely related to 
the severity of the alleged crime than to considerations of 
race. 


Recent cases brought by the American Civil Liberties Union 
(AELU) National Prison Project against various Louisania Parish 
jails -- in which the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice 
Department acted as plaintiff-intervenor -- also charged racial 
discrimination in inmate housing. Consent decrees were handed 
down pertaining to the operation of six of these Parish jails, 
and local officials have agreed to cease the discriminatory 
practice. 


76 


Service and Rehabilitation Programs 

In 1978, $15,289,000 was allocated by the federal prison 
system for education, training and leisure activity programs 
for inmates. Staffed by 500 personnel in 38 institutions and 
other offices of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, these programs 
helped inmates acquire marketable skills and develop ways of 
coping with readjustment problems. For example, during 1977, 
there were 64,618 prisoners enrolled in federal programs for 
education and vocational training. Only 21 percent of these 
enrollments were terminated without completion- In 1977, 224 
inmates received college degrees. 

Vocational and occupational training and apprenticeship 
programs are also organized by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

At present, there are 116 programs in 41 different trades in 
18 institutions. In addition, various leisure activities are 
available to inmates at federal prisons. 

In 1977, the Federal Bureau of Prisons set up 11 new 
Federal Prison Industries to provide employment opportunities 
and income for more inmates. In 1978, Federal Prison Industries 
had 75 industrial operations in 35 institutions and employed 
an average of 6,700 inmates (compared to 6,094 in 1977). 
Increased sales to other government agencies during the fiscal 
year amounted to approximately $94,700,000; inmate wages 
increased to $7,300,000; and payment to other inmates for 
meritorious services amounted to nearly $2,500,000 (compared 
to $1,992,359 in 1977). 

Other programs of the Federal Bureau of Prisons include 
religious services in which outside clergy, working under 
contract and assisted by 3,600 community volunteers, provide 
a variety of religious services. 

In 1977, after a six-month trial period, the Federal Bureau 
of Prisons issued a new media policy which permits reporters 
to interview any inmate in custody, if the inmate agrees. In 
addition, under the Freedom of Information Act, prisoners are 
entitled to inspect portions of their record files. Under the 
Privacy Act of 1974, inmates are protected against unauthorized 
disclosure of private information about their lives. 

In another move to facilitate contacts between prisoners 
and the outside world, the Federal Bureau of Prisoners adopted 
a policy that inmates can send postage-free letters to members 
of the press, Congress and the courts. Such letters cannot be 
opened by the prison administration. However, Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons Norman Carlson has proposed an economy 
cutback in this program. He has proposed that the franking 
privilege be restricted to five first-class stamps per month and 
free stamps be provided for prisoners who are indigent. Accord- 


77 


ing to Carlson, most prisoners in the federal prison system earn 
about $1,100 a year and can afford to buy their own stamps. 

In 1975, the Federal Bureau of Prisons implemented an 
Administrative Remedies Procedure as a way of helping inmates 
raise complaints or issues for administrative review. The 
Bureau set up a review procedure under which complaints are 
first examined by the local administrator. The cases are then 
appealed to the regional office and they are finally sent to 
the Washington office of the General Counsel of the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons. From 1975 to 1978, the number of inmates 
that used this procedure increased from 20 percent to 58 per¬ 
cent. The most frequently raised issues were disciplinary 
actions, changes in program or work assignments and requests 
for transfer. Action by the National Prison Project has 
resulted in requiring the Federal Bureau of Prisons to prepare 
and make public an index of the final dispositions of all the 
administrative grievance complaints. 

An Office of Professional Responsibility was set up in 
September of 1977 to monitor boards of inquiry and other inves¬ 
tigations in the Bureau. In February of 1979, an Office of 
Inspections was created to develop and conduct an inspection 
program so that the federal prison system complied with legal 
and regulatory requirements. 

Admittedly, the preceding programs have not all been 
unqualified successes. For example, a 1979 study by the General 
Accounting Office found that prison programs aimed at educating 
and training inmates for jobs after their release had serious 
deficiencies. Nevertheless, serious efforts are being made 
to overcome these problems. 

Hea1th Care 

The quality of inmate medical care has been criticized. 

Most prisons have difficulty hiring doctors, primarily because 
of difficult working conditions and because many prisons are 
located in remote, rural areas where few doctors want to prac¬ 
tice. As a result, prisons often ,have to hire less qualified 
physicians. In addition, many prison doctors do not completely 
fulfill their contractual obligations to the prisons. To deal 
with such problems, the National Health Service Corps will, 
in 1980, place 100 qualified doctors in city and county jails 
and in state penitentiaries where there is a shortage of medical 
personnel. The Corps will choose the prison physicians from 
among the recipients of medical school scholarships offered in 
return for a commitment to serve in areas where there are not 
enough doc tors. 

The level of health care facilities in the federal prison 
system is considered to be fairly good. Each prison has an 


78 


infirmary, six prisons have accredited hospitals; and prisons 
can use local hospital facilities when necessary. 

On the other hand, recent cases reveal severe shortcomings 
in the level of medical care available to inmates in state 
prisons. In 1978, the National Prison Project brought a class 
action suit against the governor of Tennessee on behalf of the 
prisoners in the Tennessee state system. The court agreed that 
the prisoners' Constitutional rights had been violated and that 
they were legally entitled to better medical care. In 1977, 
the Michigan state prison system was faced with 25 million 
dollars in pending malpractice suits filed by state prisoners. 

As a result, Michigan increased its expenditures for prison 
health care from 3.5 million dollars to 15.6 million dollars; 
began plans to construct a seven million dollar infirmary to 
replace a facility which the court had ordered closed; and began 
to recruit medical personnel for what has now become an 
excellent prison medical care system. 

The American Medical Association (AMA) -- working closely 
with the head of the Michigan health care unit -- has developed 
national standards for jail health care programs. The AMA has 
used these standards to evaluate and accredit jail programs 
thoughout the country and is encouraging medical schools to 
become active in medical programs at jails seeking AMA accredi¬ 
tation. Students from medical colleges in Ohio, Washington, 
Virginia and New Mexico now participate in prison health care 
programs. The American Public Health Association has issued 
prison health standards requiring that the level of medical 
care be comparable to that of the community at large. 

A recent award of $518,000 in damages to Henry Tucker, 
an inmate in a Virginia state prison who was paralyzed after 
incompetent medical care, shows the possible results of litiga¬ 
tion on behalf of prisoners. Awarded the largest amount ever 
paid to a prisoner for mistreatment in a U.S. prison, Tucker was 
paroled a few months ago after serving 12 years of a 40-year 
sentence for breaking and entering. His paralysis resulted 
from improper diagnosis and treatment. 

Legal action has also been initiated to improve prison 
medical care. One important case is that of Ruiz v. Estelle, a 
class action suit currently in the courts against the Texas De¬ 
partment of Corrections. This case, in which the Civil Rights 
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is acting as plain¬ 
tiff - i nter venor , is on behalf of 25,000 prisoners in Texas 
institutions who charge, among other things, that the Texas 
Department of Corrections has failed to provide adequate medical 
care. The anticipated outcome of this trial, according to the 


79 



U.S. Civil Rights Commission, is that there will be a comprehen¬ 
sive court order requiring the defendants to improve the quality 
and quantity of medical care provided to inmates and to make 
other necessary changes. 

Cases such as these have led the way to a new formulation 
of prisoners' health care rights. Federal courts have estab¬ 
lished that prisoners have a right to a regular health care 
program conducted by trained medical personnel that include 
regular medical examinations and tests, regular acccess to 
medical treatment and the services of outside medical services 
when needed. The courts have also restricted prison guards 
from denying prescribed drugs to prisoners. This framework 
of medical rights -- similar to the standards set up by the 
American Medical Association (AMA) -- has led to an increase 
in the number of legal actions from prisoners. 

A 1975 AMA survey of the medical services in 30 jails 
revealed that less than one-half of these facilities provided 
a regular sick call, and only 10 percent screened newly admitted 
prisoners for communicable diseases. The Law Enforcement Assis¬ 
tance Administration (LEAA) has allocated millions of dollars 
to hire medical staff in jails, while some local authorities 
have increased their budgets for prison medical care. There 
is obviously still room for further improvement, although recent 
cases brought by prisoners charging inadequate medical care 
have brought about some needed reforms. 

Medical Experimentation 

The U.S. prison system has also been under attack for in¬ 
mate participation in programs for testing new medicines. The 
Federal Bureau of Prisons had one program of medical testing 
on inmates that was terminated in 1976. This program studied 
the effect of buprenophine (a morphine-1ike substance) on 28 
former addict inmate volunteers at the Addiction Research Center 
at the federal prison in Lexington, Kentucky. Before inmates 
could participate in this program, they were asked to sign a 
"Consent to Experimental Procedure or Treatment" form. After 
joining, inmates were free to withdraw at any time. During 
the entire duration of the program, all inmates were checked 
medically and monitored for their reactions. The Federal Bureau 
of Prisons issued a directive on June 10, 1977, halting all 

inmate participation in medical experimentation and pharmaceu¬ 
tical testing in any institution under its jurisdiction. 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons also maintains a mental 
health unit at the Federal Correctional Institution at Butner, 
North Carolina, which provides psychiatric and therapeutic pro¬ 
grams for inmates who are suicidal, are overtly psychotic or 
have severe behavioral disorders. Medical programs are provided 
by a physician and physician assistants; dentists and dental 


80 


assistants. The mental health staff includes five part-time 
psychiatrists, six psychiatric nurses and an occupational thera¬ 
pist. No medical experimentation is conducted on prisoners at 
the Butner prison. There is no factual basis for charges that 
prisoners at Butner are subjected to unethical medical practice. 

Anerican society has long been concerned about the possi¬ 
bility of the abuse of ethical standards when prisoners are 
the subjects of medical and drug experimentation. Thus, in 
1962, the Food and Drug Administration set up guidelines nrnvid- 
ing safeguards for those on whom new drugs are tested. These 
regulations require, in general, that before using new drugs, 
the doctor must first obtain the consent of those involved or 
their representative. These guidelines were strengthened when 
the National Research Act was signed into law on July 12, 1974, 

setting up the National Commission for the Protection of Human 
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. One of the 
mandates of the Commission is to develop ethical guidelines 
for the conduct of research involving human beings. The Commis¬ 
sion has issued reports with recommendations for the protection 
of prisoners and mental patients who are involved in medical 
research. These recommendations were directed to Congress and 
HEW which issued rules providing for the protection of prisoners 
involved in research as subjects. These rules apply to research 
activities conducted or supported by HEW. The rules provide, 
in part: 

"(a) Biomedical or behavioral research conducted or 
supported by HEW may involve prisoners as subjects 
only if: (1) the institution responsible for the con¬ 
duct of the research has certified to the Secretary 
that the Institutional Review Board has approved the 
research; and (2) in the judgment of the Secretary 
the proposed research involves solely the following: 
study of the possible causes, effects, and processes 
of incarceration, provided that the study presents 
minimal or no risk and no more than inconvenience 
to the subjects; study of prisons as institutional 
structures or of prisoners as incarcerated persons, 
provided that the study presents minimal or no risk 
and no more than inconvenience to the subjects; or 
research or practices, both innovative and accepted, 
which have the intent and reasonable probability of 
improving the health and well-being of the subject. 

"(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a), biomedical 
or behavioral research conducted or supported by HEW 
shall not involve prisoners as subjects." 

Medical experimentation on inmates in state prisons, how¬ 
ever, is still an active issue. A recent case brought by the 
American C i vi 1 Liberties Union's (ALLU) National Prison Project 


81 


challenged the use of Maryland state prisoners in non- 
therapeutic medical experiments conducted by the University 
of Maryland School of Medicine. Official explanations that 
inmate participation in the vaccine-testing programs was volun¬ 
tary were disproven. The case was won by the prisoners and 
the program has since been discontinued. Judicial action con¬ 
cerning the awarding of damages to inmates who had participated 
in this program is now under consideration. 

At present, only seven U.S. states conduct medical research 
on prison inmates and eight states, in addition to the Federal 
Government, ban the use of inmates in medical experimentation. 

Prison Violence 

Instances of violence among inmates, and between guards and 
prisoners occur throughout the prison system. However, there 
is increasing action being taken to remedy this situation. In 
March of 1979, the AELU National Prison Project brought suit 
against the Federal Bureau of Prisons charging that 38 prisoners 
at the federal penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, were 
subjected to brutal treatment in April of 1978. The Federal 
Government is being sued for nearly six million dollars in 
damages in this case. One of the charges brought against the 
prison officials is that after the prisoners were injured, they 
were denied medical treatment. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has 
publicly denied that any brutality ocurred in this incident. 

Efforts at Reform 

The formulation and publication of national standards for 
the penal system is a high priority in the movement to reform 
U.S. prisons. This action is an essential complement to the 
court action on behalf of individual inmates, or even the liti¬ 
gation against state prison systems. Professional organiza¬ 
tions, such as the American Medical Association and the American 
Bar Association, have issued standards which cover their parti¬ 
cular areas of expertise. The U.S. Attorney General's office 
has also published its own draft prison standards. 

It is the American Correctional Association, a respected 
group of penologists and prison administrators, that has 
developed the most comprehensive set of standards addressing 
the problems of the U.S. penal system. Those standards include 
adult facilities (adult correctional institutions, adult local 
detention facilities, adult community residential services, 
adult probation and parole field services and adult parole 
authorities) and juvenile facilities (juvenile detention facil¬ 
ities and services, juvenile conrmunity residential services, 
juvenile probation and aftercare services and juvenile training 
schools and services). In the next few months, another set 
of standards for the Organization and Administration of Correc- 


82 


tional Services will be issued. The American Correctional 
Association, for example, set the following standards for inmate 
housing in adult correctional institutions: Each room or cell 
has toilet facilities; lighting of at least 20 footcandles, 
both occupant and centrally controlled; circulation of at least 
10 cubic feet of fresh or purified air per minute; hot and cold 
running water, unless there is ready access; acoustics that 
ensure that noise levels do not interfere with normal human 
activities; bunk, desk, shelf, hooks or closet space, chair 
or stool; and natural light. 

While these standards are not legally binding, they provide 
an incentive for institutions to meet improved norms. In fact, 
the Federal Bureau of Prisons is in the process of having five 
major institutions and all federal community treatment centers 
accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections 
by December of 1979. By 1983, the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
plans to have all 38 of its institutions accredited. 

One important reform in the present parole system in 
federal prisons was legislation signed into law on March 15, 
1976. This legislation restructured the U.S. Parole Board as 
the nine-member, regionalized U.S. Parole Commission, making 
the Commission independent of the Department of Justice, except 
for administrative purposes. This act is designed to ensure 
prisoners of a fair parole procedure by setting up guidelines 
for parole determinations, establishing requirements for parole 
hearing procedures; requiring that clear explanations be offered 
an inmate who is denied parole; and establishing due process 
for a person threatened with having his parole revoked for 
technical violation of his parole conditions. Such legislation, 
while it directly affects only the inmates in federal prisons, 
can be seen as a model for state actions. 

Conclusion 

There is room for improvement in the U.S. prison system. 
Most officials recognize the need for improvement and many 
ameliorative actions are being undertaken. Certainly the move to 
community-based treatment centers is a positive trend. And, if 
all medical experimentation on prisoners cannot be eliminated, 
such programs should adhere to HEW guidelines for humane treat¬ 
ment . 


Litigation against state prison officials has rectified 
grievances for a considerable number of inmates- As a number of 
such cases are presently in the courts, it is likely more state 
prisons will soon be under court order to make fundamental 
changes. In addition, the American Correctional Association's 
set of prison standards offers the potential for the essential 
elimination of some of the worst prison abuses. Another 


83 


possible path to prison reform and improvement would be to set 
up independent ombudsmen who could monitor prison problems. 
Minnesota has adopted this procedure and now has one of the 
finest prison systems in the United States. 


The Rights of Prisoners 


One of the more positive trends in the 
penal system has been the relatively recent 
the courts in behalf of prisoners' rights, 
the 1960's, the courts generally maintained 
period of incarceration a prison inmate was 
state" and had virtually no rights. In recent 
the Supreme Court has led the way in reversing 


history of the U.S 
inter vent ion by 
From 1871 until 
that during the 
a "slave of the 
time s, howeve r, 
this a 11it ude 


and in establishing judicial standards for a whole range of 
court decisions favoring increased prisoner rights. In the 
past 15 years, over 1,000 cases, affecting a wide variety of 
prison practices and policies, have improved the position of 
prisoners throughout the United States. 


In 1964, for example, the Supreme Court held that the 
claims of religious persecution of Black Muslim inmates could 
be raised in federal courts under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. 
This decision cleared the way for other cases which established 
the right of sect members in prison to subscribe to Black Muslim 
newspapers, to have a special diet, to have visits by their 
ministers and to attend Muslim services. Subsequent litigation 
by prisoners alleging violations of Constitutional rights to 
religious freedoms established the precedent that judicial 
involvement in prison administration was justified when the 
personal freedoms of the First Amendment to the Constitution 
were concerned. As a result, the burden of proof in such cases 
shifted from the inmate to the state. 


Other cases in which inmates have successfully brought suit 
involve freedom of association for prisoners. Courts have upheld 
the right of inmates for completely free access to their 
lawyers; however, security considerations somewhat limit con¬ 
tacts between prisoners and their families. 

Another push for reform was prompted by cases dealing with 
the rights of inmates to send and receive correspondence. In 
1971, for example, a federal court ruled in Marsh v. Mo ore that 
the opening and censorship of inmate-attorney mail viol aFed 
the Sixth Amendment since necessary inspection for contraband 
could be performed in less obtrusive ways. 

Prison Conditions and Due Process 


Some courts have found that conditions in prisons are in 
violation of Eighth Amendment guarantees against cruel and un¬ 
usual punishment. A court ruled in 1971 (Jones v. Whittens- 


84 





berg) that severe overcrowding, poor lighting, inferior food 
and medical services and inadequate sanitary conditions were 
in violation of Eighth Amendment rights. In the Estelle v. 
Gambler case (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that "deliberate 
indif f er ence" to the medical needs of prisoners also violated 
the Eighth Amendment. Another basis for litigation by inmates 
has been infringement of their rights to due process. In this 
regard, the courts have attempted to balance the legitimate 
concerns of the state against the rights of the prisoners. 

The Supreme Court held, in the Johnson v. Aver y case (1961), 
that "it is fundamental that access of prisoners to the courts 
for the purpose of presenting their complaints may not be denied 
or obstructed." In this case, the Supreme Court also found a 
prohibition against "jailhouse lawyers" -- prisoners who give 
legal advice -- to be unconstitutional, since it placed an 
unequal burden on indigent and illiterate prisoners to assert 
their rights. In another case involving due process rights, 
the Supreme Court held that an inmate’s parole cannot be revoked 
without a hearing and issued minimal due process standards for 
parole revocation hearings. These standards were later extended 
to cover probation revocations. 

One of the most important recent cases involving extension 
of due process rights of prisoners is that of the Wolff v. 

• M cDonne 1 1 case ( 1 974 ). It established the right of an Primate 
to certain protections in prison disciplinary proceedings. 

The prisoner is entitled to the following rights: the right 
to receive at least 24 hours advance written notice of the 
charges against him and a written statement of the evidence 
and reasons for the disciplinary action; the right to call 
witnesses and to introduce evidence; the right to substitute 
counsel if he cannot conduct his own defense; and the right 
to an impartial disciplinary board. 

State Prison System 

Recent federal court findings that various aspects of the 
state penal systems are unconstitutional further exemplify the 
increasingly active federal role in the area of prison adminis¬ 
tration. Since 90 percent of all U.S. penal institutions are 
under .the jurisdiction of the states, such court findings have 
a profound effect on the U.S. prison system. In 1976, federal 
Judge Frank M. Johnson, in the McCray v. Sul 1i van case, ordered 
the Alabama state penal system to stop receiving new inmates 
at overcrowded facilities. That same year, Judge Johnson issued 
another decision with even more far reaching implications, 
calling for a detailed statement of minimal Constitutional 
standards for the Alabama penal system (James v. Wall a ce). 

These "Minimal Standards for Inmates of the Alabama Prison 
System" require the state to furnish each inmate with a private 
cell, hot and cold running water, toilet articles, reading and 
writing materials, three nutritious meals a day and adequate 


85 










exercise and medical care. In addition, the standards provide 
for a system of inmate classification; protection from violence; 
rights to free correspondence; educational, work, vocational 
and recreational opportunities; and the organization of work- 
release and other programs. The standards also require an 
increase in prison staff and a timetable and monitoring 
mechanism for compliance. This landmark case paved the way 
for further court involvement in the administration of the state 
prison system. In a 1968 finding, the Supreme Court ruled ( Lee 
v. Washington ) that certain Alabama statutes violated the 14th 
Amendment rights of prisoners by requiring segregation of the 
races in prisons and jails. 

Another important case against an entire state prison 
system charged the Texas Department of Corrections with a number 
of prison abuses. The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice 
Department is participating in this suit as plaintiff-inter- 
venor. The anticipated conclusion of this trial, which began 
in October of 1978, is that there will be a comprehensive order 
requiring the state prison authorities to redress the alleged 
grievances of the prisoners under their jurisdiction. 

Alvin Bronstein, of the National Prison Project, said in 
h i <; April of 1 979 testimonv before the CSCE Commission, that 
le^al action has been initiated against the prison systems in 
numerous other states. 

After the successful litigation which has been brought 
against state prison systems , suit is now being brought against 
the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections charging 
that he had failed to carry out his duties under state law to 
inspect and enforce minimum standards in Florida jails resulting 
in prisoners' Constitutional rights being violated. 

The Rights of Mental Patients 


Parallel to the prisoners' rights movement, a patients' 
rights movement has also emerged in the U.S. in the last 
decade. Within the past few years, legal action brought by 
advocates for the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill 
has resulted in landmark court decisions in defense of their 
rights. Successful litigation, based on evidence of infringe¬ 
ment of Constitutional guarantees, has resulted in a series 
of advances for patients. They include the right to treatment, 
protection from harm, treatment in the least restrictive 
setting, equal educational opportunity, protection from the 
forced administration of hazardous or intrusive procedures, 

1 5 . A list of the current status of lawsuits which have been 
brought against the state prison systems for their 
violations of Constitutional protections appears in 
Appendix II. 


86 






safeguards against indefinite confinement after finding one 
is incompetent to stand trial, procedural and substantive 
protections in the civil commitment process, and freedom from 
unjustified confinement. 


Lega1 Decisions 

As in the movement for prisoners' rights, progress in the 
patients' rights movement has been largely due to decisions 
in several key court cases. In one such case, federal Judge 
Frank M. Johnson, after personally inspecting a substandard 
mental hospital in Alabama and hearing expert testimony on 
minimal treatment requirements, declared the hospital to be 
an unconstitutional deprivation of the patients' rights to 
treatment. The judicial reasoning for this decision was that, 
under the due process clause, adequate and effective treatment 
was the q uid pro quo for the patients' involuntary commitment. 
Such reasoning became the basis of various judicial orders to 
state authorities to improve the staffing and financing of 
dilapidated facilities. As a result of such litigation in 
Alabama, the budget of the state's Department of Mental Health 
has gone from 28 million dollars in 1970 to an estimated 83 
million dollars in 1973. 

Another important step in furthering the rights of the 
mentally retarded occurred in the famous Willowbrook case. 

Three thousand pages of testimony led to the conclusion that 
patients in this New York hospital had deteriorated mentally, 
physically and emotionally during their period of confinement. 
Consequently, a consent decree, signed by Federal Judge Orrin 
Judd on May 3, 1973, banned existing abuses and ordered the 

availability of education, care, therapy and development for 
each patient. Because of this decree, New York is spending 
about 40 million dollars more for Willowbrook than it did in 
1972, the year that the lawsuit was filed. 

In addition to decisions affecting institutions as a whole, 
courts have handed down important rulings reinforcing the 
individual rights of mental patients. Relying on Constitutional 
guarantees protecting freedom of speech and religion and 
prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, courts have recently 
issued decisions against a number of possible abuses, including 
excessive use of therapies such as psychosurgery, behavior 
modification, e1ectro-shock treatment and drug applications. 
These court rulings found a sound legal base in the doctrine 
of a Constitutiona1 right to privacy. In one case, Kaimowit z 
v. Michigan Depart ment of Mental H y giene (1973), the court 
applied this principle to protect a mental patient from psycho¬ 
surgery with the following explanation: 


87 







"Intrusion into one's intellect, when one is 
involuntarily detained and subject to the control 
of institutional authorities, is an intrusion 
into one's Constitutionally protected right of 
privacy. If one is not protected in his thoughts, 
behavior, personality and identity, then the 
right of privacy becomes meaningless." 

An important Constitutional guarantee affecting the status 
of mental patients has been the right to due process. In 1974, 
a court ruled (Clonce v. Richardson ) that a behavior modifica¬ 
tion program was uncon s tit utiona1 because the patient had not 
been given adequate procedural protections prior to placement 
in the program. 

Another due process issue is that a patient should have 
substantially the same procedural protections whether or not 
he or she has been admitted under a criminal or civil 
procedure. The Supreme Court ruled, in Jac kson v. Indiana , 
that "due process requires that the natuFe and duration of 
commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for 
which the individual is committed." Thus, as the Supreme Court 
has extended due process deadlines on commitment because of 
incompetence to stand trial and on commitment for observation, 
then guarantees should also be extended to the question of dead¬ 
lines on commitment for treatment. 

Indeed, various professional organizations, such as the 
American Psychological Association and the American Ortho¬ 
psychiatric Association, agree with the American Civil Liberties 
Union which has said: 

"The mental health system would be a very 
different and more humane system if hospitals 
were allowed only a limited and non renewable 
period of time within which to treat or cure 
involuntarily confined patients. In our view, 
even if civil commitment continues to be 
permitted, no one should be involuntarily confined 
to a mental hospital for more than six months." 

One trend in litigation (based on the Constitutional right 
to liberty) is towards allowing patients to have a voice in 
the kinds of treatment they receive. Thus, even if patients 
do not have the right to refuse treatment altogether, they may 
be able to refuse more extreme types of treatment. The legal 
situation is complicated because every state has its own laws 
which deal with the issue of patients' rights, although they 
vary in specificity and enforceability. For example, on the 


88 




issue of incompetence, Connecticut has a requirement that "a 
declaration of incompetence must be specific to the rights 
involved before those rights can be abridged," while other 
states, such as Maryland, rule only that "incompetence must 
be determined by a court." As to the question of treatment, 
Idaho law declares that "every patient has a right to refuse 
specific modes of treatment which may be denied by the director 
of the facility for good cause with statement of reasons sent 
to district court," while Hawaii has no specific provisions 
on this issue. 


Confinement Procedures Challenged 

The Supreme Court decision in O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975) 
is crucial to the patients' rights movement. Tn Tts decision, 
the Cour t ruled: 

"A finding of 'mental illness' alone cannot 
justify a state's locking a person up against 
his will and keeping him indefinitely in simple 
custodial confinement. Assuming that term can 
be given a reasonably precise content and that 
the 'mentally ill' can be identified with 
reasonable accuracy, there is still no 
Constitutional basis for confining such persons 
involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one 
and can live safely in freedom... 

"Mere public intolerance or animosity cannot 
constitutionally justify the deprivation of a 
person's physical liberty..." 

In this ruling, the Supreme Court made clear that involun¬ 
tary confinement simply because of mental illness is not Consti¬ 
tutionally justified. There must be proof of some degree of 
danger to self or others. 

Accordingly, this significant Supreme Court decision had 
a direct effect on corrmi tment procedures throughout the U.S. 
Basing their decisions on O'Connor v. Donaldson, federal courts 
in Hawaii, Iowa, Nebraska and Pennsylvania have issued rulings 
requiring the redefinition of the grounds for commitment to 
mental institutions in civil cases. Historically, there have 
been two bases for such commitments: either parens patriae , 
when the patient is deemed to be a danger to self, or "poTice 
power", when a patient is held to be a danger to others. Recent 
court cases have shown an increasing reliance on "police power" 
with the result that there must be a proven likelihood of a 
threat to others, as opposed to a vague possibility of a danger 
to self. This shift in corrmi tment procedures in civil cases 
decreases the possibility of arbitrary or unjustified c orrm i t - 
me n t s . 


89 





In the O'Connor v. Donaldson decision, the Court also 
stated that "inearceration Ts rarely if ever a necessary condi¬ 
tion for raising the living standards of those capable of 
surviving safely in freedom, on their own or with the help of 
family or friends." This finding has produced a shift from 
voluntary to involuntary corrmi tmen t s to mental institutions 
since the individual is deemed to be owed a q uid pro quo for 
the deprivation by the state of his or her personal liberty. 
Thus, there has been an improvement in the care provided in 
state institutions, and fewer people are being conrmitted to 
institutions. 

As the focus of care has shifted to the community, there 
has been a decline in the population of psychiatric institutions 
and schools for the mentally retarded. For example, according 
to the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the 
rate of first admissions to state psychiatric hospitals has 
declined from 163,984 in 1969 to 120,000 in 1975. This trend 
away from institutions is also in part attributable to the 
O'Connor v. Donaldson ruling in which the Court held that 
a person cannot be unwi 1 1 i ng 1 y conrmitted unless he is a danger 
to self or others. This finding of dangerousness, moreover, 
must be based on behavior and not a generalized threat. 

Governmental Actions 

A further impetus to de i nstitutiona1ization -- as well 
as a general extension of patients' rights -- came in October 
of 1975, when the Deve1opmenta 11y Disabled Assistance and Bill 
of Rights Act was signed into law by President Ford. Section 
201 of the law reads: 

"Section III. Congress makes the following 
findings respecting the rights of persons with 
developmental disabilities: 

"(1) Persons with developmental disabilities 
have a right to appropriate treatment, services, 
and habilitation for such disabilities. 

"(2) The Federal Government and the states 
both have an obligation to assure that public 
funds are not provided to any institutional or 
other residential programs for persons with 
developmental disabilities that -- 

"(A) Does not provide treatment, services, and 
habilitation which is appropriate to the needs 
of such persons; or 

"(B) Does not meet the following minimum 
standards: 


90 





"(i) Provision of a nourishing, 
well-balanced daily diet to the persons with 
developmental disabilities being served by the 
program. 

"(ii) Provision to such persons of 
appropriate and sufficient medical and dental 
services. 

"(iii) Prohibition of the use of physical 
restraint on such persons unless absolutely 
necessary and prohibition of the use of such 
restraint as a punishment or as a substitute for 
a habilitation program. 

"(iv) Prohibition on the excessive use of 
chemical restraints on such persons and the use 
of such restraints as punishment or as a 
substitute for a habilitation program or in 
quantities that interfere with services, 
treatment or habilitation for such persons. 

"(v) Permission for close relatives of such 
persons to visit them at reasonable hours 
without prior notice. 

"(vi) Compliance with adequate fire and 
safety standards as may be promulgated by the 
Secretary (of Health, Eduction and Welfare)." 

The act also placed increased emphasis on deinstitu¬ 
tionalization, primarily by requiring states to use at least 
10 percent of their formula-grant allotment in Fiscal Year 1976 
and at least 30 percent in each succeeding year for development 
and implementation of plans designed to eliminate inappropriate 
institutional placements. 

This law, along with other measures, has produced change 
in many areas. In 1973, for example, New York agreed to place 
8,300 of the 19,300 retarded people living in 20 state institu¬ 
tions in homelike settings in local communities scattered 
throughout the state. However, due to initial community opposi¬ 
tion, the state has not been able to fully meet this goal. 

In some New York communities this opposition was overcome, once 
the facility started functioning and popular fears were 
allayed. Nevertheless, community opposition promises to remain 
a heavy obstacle to this course of action. Despite these diffi¬ 
culties, mental health professionals agree that community homes 
and deinstitutiona1ization provide the best solution for many 
mental patients. However, communities must become more tolerant 
of such people before such programs can be successful on a large 
scale. 

Another indication of governmental concern for the situa¬ 
tion of mental patients was the establishment in 1977 of the 
Presidential Commission on Mental Health, with U.S. First Lady 
Rosalynn Carter as honorary chairperson. The Commission has 


91 


conducted a series of public hearings in different parts of 
the country providing an opportunity for the 20 Corrmi s s i one r s 
and members of the Commission's study groups to learn from 
citizens about the mental health needs of their varied 
cormnun i t i es . 

Based upon its findings, the Commission made a series of 
recommendations which prompted increased appropriations for 
the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration. In 
addition, the Commission recommended providing for federal 
incentives to further phase out large state mental hospitals, 
improved care in remaining smaller hospitals and community-based 
services. 

Another sign of governmental concern for people in insti¬ 
tutions is a bill titled "Civil Rights for Institutionalized 
Persons," which has passed the House and is currently under con¬ 
sideration in the Senate. If passed, this bill would permit the 
U.S. Justice Department to initiate suits on behalf of inmates 
in nursing homes, prisons, juvenile homes and institutions for the 
mentally disturbed and mentally retarded in state jurisdictions. 

Since the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, the Justice 
Department's Civil Rights Division has successfully challenged 
the Constitutionality of conditions in various U.S. institu¬ 
tions. Such institutions have included mental hospitals, homes 
for the elderly, facilities for the mentally retarded, institu¬ 
tions for abandoned and neglected children, prisons and jails, 
and juvenile detention facilities. In each case in which the 
Justice Department aided inmates in asserting their rights to 
a safe and decent environment, the court upheld the inmate's 
claims and ordered relief. 

In 1976, however, two federal court decisions threatened 
to halt this litigation program. District courts in Maryland 
and Montana ruled that without express legal authority to ini¬ 
tiate such suits, the Attorney General lacked the legal standing 
to enforce Constitutional and federal statutory rights of insti¬ 
tutionalized people. In United States v. Solomo n (1971), 
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the 
Maryland court. The need for specific authorizing legislation 
for the Attorney General thereby became clear, and the bill 
discussed above, "Civil Rigljjs for Institutionalized Persons," 
was introduced in Congress. The Commission encourages current 
efforts in the Congress to extend the authority of the Justice 
Department to intervene in certain cases of violations of the 
civil rights of institutionalized persons. 


16. A copy of H.R. 10, "Civil Rights for Institutionalized 
persons," is in Appendix III. 


92 




SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS 


The right of the individual within society to an adequate 
standard of living, regardless of personal wealth, is incor¬ 
porated into the language of Principle VII of the Helsinki Final 
Act in which participating states pledge to "promote and encour¬ 
age the effective exercise" of economic, social and cultural 
human rights. 

Communist signatories frequently charge that the U.S. 
violates the Final Act by failing to provide the basic material 
needs of all its citizens. These charges, which also are made 
by some domestic groups, are usually general in nature and often 
use a variety of inconsistent statistics. The main criticism 
is that because of unemployment or under-emp 1oyment, millions 
of Americans are poor and are forced to live in substandard 
conditions. More specifically, critics charge that because 
of alleged widespread economic deprivation, Americans suffer 
from ma1nutrition and starvation, poor medical and dental care, 
and a high infant mortality rate. Critics maintain these social 
problems include members of all ethnic and minority groups, 
including blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, youth, elderly, 
handicapped, new immigrants and migrant workers. 

In the U.S., the basic rights to economic security and 
social services are taken care of primarily by workers them¬ 
selves who provide for their needs from the wages they earn. 
These rights, therefore, are protected to the extent that the 
U.S. economy provides jobs. The U.S. Government recognizes, 
however, that under any economic system some persons will not 
always be continuously employed, be unable to work, or have 
an inadequate income. Sensitive to the needs of the more 
vulnerable members of U.S. society, the U.S. Government has 
acted to ensure their economic and social rights. An impressive 
array of new federal laws in recent decades give tangible 
evidence of the government's commitment to these rights. Even 
before the Helsinki Final Act, for example, the Social Security 
Act of 1933 established the nation's basic programs of social 
insurance for its workers and protection against poverty for 
its disadvantaged citizens. Similarly, the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964, and subsequent legislation, committed the U.S. to the 
protection of the rights of every citizen regardless of race, 
sex, age, religion, national origin or handicapping condition. 
Other social welfare legislation includes the 1963 law 
establishing programs of health insurance for the elderly 
(medicare) and the poor (medicaid). 

The United States commitment to alleviate the economic 
problems of the underprivi1 edged is reflected in the total 
welfare spending by the government which increased from 77 
billion dollars in 1963 to more than 290 billion dollars in 
1973. The largest allocation to any government agency in 1979 


93 



went to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) 

-- more than 199 billion dollars. With this huge outlay for 
many varied programs, HEW bears the prime federal responsibility 
for assisting Americans in need of economic and social aid. 

Other federal agencies are prominently involved in the 
federal programs designed to provide opportunities for the poor 
or disadvantaged to achieve self-sufficiency. Conspicuous among 
these are the Community Services Administration (CSA), which 
describes itself as the central federal agency for advocacy 
on behalf of the poor; ACTION, which administers a variety of 
domestic volunteer programs directed toward different segments 
of society; and the Department of Agriculture (DOA), particu¬ 
larly its food assistance programs. 

Historically, the U.S. has achieved some success in its 
war on poverty. In the early 1960's, there were about 39.9 
million people below the poverty level, or about 22 percent 
of the population. The latest figures available from the Bureau 
of the Census show the number living below the poverty level 
($6,190 for a non-farm family of four) was 11.6 percent or 24.7 
million in 1977. 

Government authorities point out, however, that the per¬ 
centage drop in the number of poor people in the nation between 
1970 and 19 75 was far short of the reduction which occurred 
in the booming 1960's. They attribute this in part to the 
generally stagnant economy of the early 1970's when the country 
moved in and out of recessions with heavy unemployment and 
high level inflation caused partially by the oil embargo. 

Census Bureau figures show there was some improvement 
between 1973, the year the Helsinki Final Act was signed, and 
1977. During that period, the number of people living below 
the poverty level was reduced by 1.2 million, which may be 
attributed both to intensified government efforts and to a 
moderate economic recovery. 

It is important to note that the official poverty level 
(i.e. $6,600 in 1978 to feed, cloth and house a non-farm family 
of four) is a standard which the Federal Government itself es¬ 
tablishes and adjusts periodically for inflation. The purpose 
of the standard is to provide a guideline for monitoring social 
programs and for modifying them or establishing new programs to 
assist that part of the population that has the greatest need. 

In calculating its poverty statistics, the Census Bureau 
considers monetary income only. It does not incorporate 
"in-kind" benefits such as food assistance, health care and 
social services, which represent a major growth in anti-poverty 
spending over the past decade by the Federal Government. 


94 


Alice Rivlin, Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
(CBO) , has said, "You can argue whether the line for determining 
poverty ought to be higher or lower. That's a judgment that 
society must make from time to time. But you can't argue that 
because benefits don't come in the form of cash, they're not 
bene f its." 

The CBO, in fact, has compiled its own poverty estimates 
including the value of major non-cash benefits received by the 
poor. Instead of the 10.7 million families and unrelated 
individuals living in poverty in 1976 according to Bureau of 
Census figures, the total was estimated at 6.6 million. 

The scope of this report focuses on the extent of govern¬ 
ment social services for the poor, but there are literally 
thousands of private social agencies, encouraged through special 
exemptions under U.S. tax laws, which provide emergency finan¬ 
cial or in-kind support to the needy. These include innumerable 
church groups, health organizations and foundations. 

Income Security and Social Services 

Since 1940, the principle form of assistance to older 
persons, 62 years and above, has been Social Security, a 
program of monthly cash benefits paid to retired workers and 
their families and administered through HEW. This program of 
social insurance is funded through the joint contributions of 
workers and their employers. Self-employed persons are also 
covered under the program and more than 90 percent of the work 
force is covered under the system. In addition, the spouse 
and children of a retired worker are eligible for Social 
Security benefits. Yearly indexing to adjust for inflation 
has insured that these benefits are not artificially diminished. 
During the 1975 recession, real income for elderly persons was 
more stable than for younger persons. Between 1970 and 1975, 
gains in real income for the elderly, about 15 percent after 
adjustment for inflation, greatly exceeded that of younger 
families, approximately 1 percent after adjustment. This was 
primarily a result of automatic benefit increases. 

The Social Security program also provides cash benefits 
to disabled workers and their dependents and the survivors of 
workers including widows, widowers, orphans and dependent 
parents . 

In addition to Social Security benefits, there is a federal 
program called Supplemental Security Income (SSI) which assures 
a minimum monthly income to needy blind or disabled persons who 

TT. HEW Administ ration Aging (medium incomes compared). 


95 




are over 65 years old. Federal funds under this program are 
also supplemented by cash assistance benefits by the states. 

HEW reported that in September of 1978, more than 4.2 million 
people received SSI payments totalling 550 million dollars. 

The federal program of Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children (AFDC) is a program of payments to provide basic needs 
such as shelter, food and clothing to low-income families with 
dependent children. Figures provided by HEW showed, for 
example, that in September of 1978, under the AFDC program, 

3.5 million families (10.4 million persons) received pa yme n t s 
at a monthly cost of 896 million dollars. Grants for special 
needs in emergency situations are also provided through HEW. 

In 1978- for example, 75 million dollars was spent for emergency 
assistance for 302,877 families. According to HEW, most 
families need this form of assistance only for temporary 
periods, and payments cease when they find a job. Typically, 
the length of AFDC payments is less than two years. 

An optional program, adopted by 28 states, provides finan¬ 
cial assistance to families in which the father is unemployed 
(AFDC-UF). In addition, there is a provision for payment of 
an incentive tax credit for certain employers who hire workers 
receiving public assistance. 

HEW also has social services for poor and vulnerable mem¬ 
bers of society which are administered through its Office of 
Human Development Services (HDS). About 80 percent of HDS' funds 
are dispersed directly to individual states to administer pro¬ 
grams directed toward children, youth, families, Native 
Americans, the physically and mentally handicapped and older 
Americans. Other HDS grant programs provide funds for pro¬ 
gramming at the local level. In 1980, almost 6 million dollars 
is budgeted for individuals requiring these special services. 
Examples, summarized by HEW Deputy Undersecretary Peter Bell 
at the Commission's April of 1979 CSCE domestic compliance 
hearings, include: 

-- The Title XX program which makes grants totaling almost 
3 billion dollars to states for a wide range of social services, 
including child care. 

-- Rehabilitation programs in the amount of 919 million 
dollars, serving 1.7 million handicapped persons -- half of 
whom are severely disabled. 

-- Service programs for the elderly in the amount of 560 
million dollars which make available meals in group settings 
and meals-on-wheels, as well as transportation and legal 
ser vices. 

-- Approximately 900 million dollars is allocated for 
services specifically for children. The best known of these, 
Head Start, will serve 414,000 underprivi1 edged children in 
1980, providing preschoolers with meals and snacks, medical 


96 


and dental care, and educational programs. Also, 85 million 
new dollars are allocated to provide child welfare and foster 
care services, as well as a new program for adoption subsidies 
for hard-to-place children. 


HEALTH 

Closely related to the right to an adequate standard of 
living is access to proper medical care, regardless of one's 
financial status. In 1980, HEW reports it will spend approxi¬ 
mately 52 billion dollars on hea1th-re 1ated programs -- a 25- 
fold increase since 1965. These funds will be used to help 
meet the costs of health care for the poor and the elderly, 
support the training of medical professionals, operate community 
health centers, develop preventive health services, promote 
the spread of health maintenance organizations, immunize 
children and provide services to the mentally ill. 

More than 45 billion dollars will be spent in 1980 in the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

The Medicare program, enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1965, 
provides a major source of financial assistance to elderly 
Americans in meeting health care expenses. Approximately 97 
percent of elderly Americans age 65 or over have been covered 
by the Medicare program since its inception. In July of 1973, 
Medicare was expanded to include two large groups of citizens 
under 65. These groups included approximately 2.7 million 
severely disabled individuals who had been entitled to Social 
Security disability benefits for two years or more because of 
their condition and to almost all Americans suffering from 
permanent kidney failure, requiring maintenance dialysis or a 
kidney t ransplant. 

The Medicare program is divided into two parts -- hospital 
insurance and medical insurance. Approximately 97 percent of the 
nation's elderly have both forms of insurance under the program 
so almost all of their major health care needs are paid for. 

During Fiscal Year 1978, total Medicare benefits paid to 
the almost 26 million elderly and disabled Medicare benefi¬ 
ciaries amounted to 24.25 billion dollars, compared to the first 
full year of program operations when total benefit outlays were 
only 3.2 billion dollars. Allowing for inflation, real 
increases in benefits in the first 12 years of program payments 
amount to 55 percent. This increase reflects the use of more 
services, an increase in the number of people covered, and 
increased costs for more sophisticated medical technology. 

HEW officials say the most striking improvement in the 
health care of the elderly since the enactment of Medicare has 
been the reduction in costs to the patient. In 1966, the year 


97 



before the Medicare program began, the elderly American paid 
from personal resources 51 percent of the cost of hospital 
services. In 1977, only 12 percent of hospital costs were met 
from personal funds; the remainder was met through federal 
financial assistance. 

In 1966, the elderly American paid 94 percent of physician 
costs from personal funds. Ten years later that percentage 
had dropped to 40 percent as the result of federal financial 
support. Approximately 33 percent of the health care costs 
of the elderly are borne from personal funds. Almost one-fourth 
of this 33 percent, however, represents private insurance 
premiums. Nearly three-fifths of elderly Medicare beneficiaries 
purchase private insurance supplementation to offset health 
care costs not covered by Medicare. 

Medicaid is a health assistance program which provides 
payment for health care for Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children (AFDC) recipients and others whose incomes are too 
large for AFDC assistance yet too small to pay for medical care. 
HEW reports that approximately 23 million Americans are served 
each year by the program and that nearly 20 billion dollars 
in federal, state and local government funds are spent annually 
in support of eight basic services which include in-patient 
hospital care, out-patient services, lab and X-ray services, 
nursing care, home health care, preventive service for children, 
family planning and physician services. 

In each state, the Medicaid program must, at a minimum, 
cover these services for all eligible low-income individuals 
who receive federal cash assistance. In some states, additional 
services are also covered, including dental care, prescription 
drugs and emergency hospital care. All states must provide 
dental care for Medicaid children when a health screening deter¬ 
mines that treatment is required. In 1976, 45 million low- 
income persons received dental treatment under the Medicaid 
program. 

In 1980, HEW plans to commit about 600 million dollars 
to improving the care available to low-income mothers, pregnant 
women and children through a new Child Health Assurance Program 
(CHAP) and its maternal and child health programs. CHAP, as 
envisaged by HEW, will extend Medicaid eligibility to two 
million more children and directly affect infant health by 
adding Medicaid coverage to 96,000 more low-income pregnant 
mo t h e r s. 

Food Stamps and Related Food Assistance Pro g rams 

A number of special nutrition-oriented programs adminis¬ 
tered primarily by the Department of Agriculture (DOA) are de¬ 
signed to eliminate hunger and malnutrition caused by poverty. 


98 




Prominent among these is the Federal Food Stamp program, 
started in 1964, which provides assitance for food purchases 
for AFDC recipients and other low-income persons. The goal of 
the st amp p r o g r am is to allow recipients to obtain mo re food and 
increase the variety of food in family diets. An average of 16 
million persons participted in the program each month in 1978. 
They received a total of 5.5 billion dollars that year. 

Additional food assistance for the poor is carried out 
through other federal efforts including the Food Distribution 
program; the Women, Infants and Children program (WIC); the 
National School Lunch program (free or reduced priced lunches, 
now expanded to provide breakfasts during school and all meals 
during vacation periods); and the Special Milk program, also 
directed toward school children. 

The ultimate aim of food programs directed specifically 
toward underprivi1 edged children is to break the cycle which 
condemns nutritionally deprived children to a lifetime of 
poverty because of early mental or physical retardation. 

An independent report, published in 1979 by the Field 
Foundation Medical Team, concluded that federal food assistance 
programs have been very successful. "Our first and overwheIming 
impression is that there are far fewer grossly ma 1nutritioned 
people in the country than there were 10 years ago," a medical 
research team connected v/ith the Field Foundation reported. The 
report cited federal programs such as Food Stamps, school lunch 
and breakfast programs, and the Women, Infant and Children pro¬ 
gram (WIC). The Food Stamp program was further described as "the 
most valuable health dollar spent by the Federal Government." 

Community Services Administration (CSA) programs are 
another way which the Federal Government seeks to break the 
poverty cycle. CSA currently operates seven basic program areas 
aimed at helping the poor achieve self-sufficiency -- Community 
Action, Economic Development, Energy and Winterization, Senior 
Opportunities and Service to the Elderly, Community Food and 
Nutrition, Rural Housing Demonstration and Summer Youth Recrea¬ 
tion. 


These programs operate primarily through about 900 locally 
based Community Action Agencies which are within reach of 90 
percent of the nation's poor. The funding for these offices, 
the majority of which are set up as private and non-profit 
organizations, totaled nearly 369 million dollars in 1978. 

CSA also funds 39 Community Development Corporations which 
help establish businesses, restore property and provide services 
in depressed neighborhoods in order to build a strong economic 
base to support the community. These ventures are locally 


99 


controiled and owned but business, community and other public 
agencies provide some funding and management. In 1978, these 
programs generated 288 jobs per one million dollars of federal 
funds and maintained approximately the same number. 

Active participation by the poor is an integral operating 
principle of CSA. In 1978, for instance, 600 of the nation's 
poor, most representing themselves and their immediate families, 
testified at a series of forums throughout the country sponsored 
by CSA. These people included the elderly, minorities, single 
mothers, unemployed youths and the handicapped. American 
officials who listened to the poor speak about their needs 
included Members of Congress, and on one occasion, President 
Carter. CSA is using the recommendations of the poor from these 
forums to develop and plan its program priorities through 1980. 

Many CSA initiatives operate in concert with other federal 
agencies. In its efforts to improve housing among the poor, 
for instance, CSA seeks to identify and bring other federal 
and local resources to the poor. CSA programs also supplement 
HUD and Farmers Home Administration (FHA) programs and demon¬ 
strate ways to make established housing programs and policies 
more responsive to those in need. 

Awareness and sensitivity on the part of American citizens 
as a whole toward the social welfare of the nation's poor is 
demonstrated through the involvement of many people in ACTION. 
Established in 1973, ACTION brings all federally supported 
volunteer programs under the coordinating aegis of a single 
administrative agency. Those included are Volunteers in Service 
to America (VISTA), National Student Volunteer Program (NSVP), 
Foster Grandparent Program (FGP) and the Retired Senior 
Volunteer Program (RSVP). 

The VISTA nroeram o nvides full-time volunteers, recruited 
nationally and locally by project sponsors, to strengthen and 
supplement ongoing efforts to eliminate poverty and poverty- 
related human, social and environmental problems. ACTION 
reports that in 1978, there were more than 4,000 VISTA volun¬ 
teers devoting time to such basic human needs areas as health 
and nutrition, economic development and energy conservation. 

Criticism in Perspective 

Despite these many and varied federal programs aimed at 
securing economic and social human rights for everyone, the 
U.S. continues to come under attack in some specific areas. 

For example, some critics have pointed to the fact that the 
average Social Security payment per individual is at a rate 
below the poverty level minimum. Government officials, however, 
insist tht such an analogy is unrealistic since the poverty 
level is figured on a "per household" basis. The poverty level 


100 



income in 1977 was $6,191 for a non-farm family of four while 
the average Social Security payment to a retired couple that 
year was $4,680, according to HEW. But HEW points out that 
most recipients do not rely on Social Security as their total 
income. Most people have a combination of other income plus 
benefits, as well as Medicare and other supplementary medical 
insurance, subsidized by the Federal Government. 

Contrary to charges that millions of workers are denied 
even minimal protection, HEW cites statistics indicating that, 
as of December of 1977, there were 94 million workers in the 
U.S. labor force, 90 percent of whom were covered under the 
Social Security retirement program. Of those not covered, more 
than half were covered under other retirement systems such as 
those provided for federal, state or local employees. Some 
workers do not exercise their option of being included under 
Social Security. These account for 4.1 million of the 8.5 
million non-covered employees. Many of the remainder are either 
exempted under law because they work for nonprofit organizations 
or because they have little or no net earnings from self-employ¬ 
ment. Certain people in these latter two categories do have 
an opportunity to obtain coverage. 

HEW officials maintain it is misleading to say that workers 
who are not covered under Social Security at a certain point 
in time are "deprived" of its benefits, as some allege. Most 
people work in jobs at some point in their lives that are 
covered, and protection, based partially on contributions to 
the system from such jobs, is secured for them when they 
retire. 

Although there is clearly considerable room for improve¬ 
ment, criticism alleging that two out of five older people in 
the U.S. live on incomes that keep them below the poverty level 
is grossly exaggerated, according to HEW. A standard estab¬ 
lished by the Federal Government shows the correct figure for 
this group is about a third of that cited or about one in 
eight. Similarly, the allegation that 70 percent of all elderly 
blacks live in poverty is also grossly out of proportion, 
according to HEW, which says that the correct figure is about 
half of that and that the situation is still improving as the 
result of government programs. 

As alleged, the Federal Government acknowledges that there 
is a disparity in incomes between U.S. families as a whole and 
Puerto Rican families, but according to HEW, significant 
progress in this area is being made. For example, by 1977, 
the median income for Puerto Rican families was $7,972, a 30 
percent increase in the short period from 1969. During that 
period, the government points out, many programs and services 
have been developed specifically to aid persons of Hispanic 
origin in the United States. Such programs include job training 


101 


and job referrals that result in increased wages. In 1977, the 
median family income for families of Mexican origin was $11,742, 
or about 69 percent above the figure for 1969. This was higher 
than the income growth for all families in the United States. 

Exaggerated charges similar to those noted above have been 
made by critics concerning health and health care in the United 
States. 

While the U.S. ranks about 15th in infant mortality among 
developed countries, HEW notes that there are substantial 
differences in the way different countries classify fetal deaths 
versus live births. Use of the prenatal mortality rate, which 
include deaths of fetuses older than 28 weeks gestation and 
infant deaths during the first seven days, changes the U.S. 
ranking to about eighth. Furthermore, both infant and prenatal 
mortality rates have been declining rapidly in the last decade 
and this decline is shared by all population groups. 

Government statistics show that the rate of some chronic 
illness is higher among blacks and other minorities than among 
whites. The reasons for this difference are not clearly under¬ 
stood, HEW officials say, but some progress is being made in 
narrowing the gaps. For example, in 1900, white men could 
expect to live 14.1 years longer than other men. By 1950, the 
difference decreased to 7.4 years. In 1976, the difference 
was 5.6 years. 

Despite the measurable progress achieved, the U.S. is 
continuing to seek solutions to social and economic problems 
which remain for certain segments of society. Government statis¬ 
tics show that almost a third of black Americans are still 
poor. Almost 10 percent of the total population lacks health 
insurance protection. Although the infant mortality rate for 
blacks has been reduced from 43 deaths per 1,000 live births 
in 1950 to 25 per 1,000 in 1975, the rate for blacks is still 
twice as high as that for whites. Differences in income, age, 
sex and race are significant. 

Certainly, there are no easy solutions to these problems 
whether they stem from human, social or environmental causes. 

But for the employable poor, the escape from poverty is perhaps 
best channeled through improved enforcement of affirmative 
action programs which lead to better educational opportunities 
and better paying jobs. 

More intensive job training linked with strong employment 
incentives may serve as a partial means of eliminating poverty 
as well. Congress has recognized this in its funding for more 
than 600,000 public service jobs in 1979, many earmarked for 
the poor unable to find jobs. 


102 


New Initiatives 


Legislative initiatives proposed by President Carter are 
aimed at addressing the economic and social human rights of 
the underprivi1 edged, the unemployed and the under-emp 1oyed. 

The President's proposed welfare reform plan would raise 
benefits, both in terms of cash assistance and food stamps, 
for 800,000 American families in 13 states. The package would 
cost an extra 3.7 billion dollars in Fiscal Year 1982, when 
the plan would take effect. The largest portion of the addi¬ 
tional spending, about 2.7 billion dollars, would provide 
620,000 jobs and training opportunities for welfare recipients 
able to work. The proposal would also provide more than 900 
million dollars in fiscal relief to state and local governments 
through increased federal matching funds and reduction of wel¬ 
fare rolls when people get jobs. In presenting this package 
to Congress in May of 1979, President Carter said, "I recognize 
that welfare reform is a difficult undertaking, but even in 
a period of austerity and fiscal stringency, our nation cannot 
ignore its most pressing needs and its most needy." 

Recognizing the need for improvement in the medical area, 
the President's proposal for a national health insurance program 
would expand Medicare and Medicaid benefits for the aged and 
the poor. Additionally, the plan would give those who are not 
covered by company or public plans the opportunity of buying 
insurance at a reduced rate. This insurance, subsidized by 
the government, would provide a basic package of benefits 
including hospital and physician services, X-ray and laboratory 
tests and some form of catastrophe coverage. The estimated 
cost to the Federal Government is about 13 billion dollars a 
year with employees and employers contributing about 3 billion 
dollars. Similar plans are being considered by Congress. 

There seems to be no question, however, that the quality 
of life and health status and care enjoyed by most Americans, 
regardless of their personal income, has improved considerably 
in recent years. As HEW's Peter Bell said in his testimony 
at the Commission's hearings on domestic compliance with the 
Final Act: 

The number of persons living in poverty has dropped 
significantly over the last two decades, from a little more 
than one-fifth of the population in 1960 to just under one- 
eighth during the 1970's. 

Not so many years ago, most Americans lived in fear 
of spending their old age in poverty and ill health. Today, 
that fear has been significantly relieved. Social Security 
insures a level of basic income support, and Medicare provides 
a means of paying for the high cost of medical care. 


103 



The dread diseases of the past are virtually unknown 
in modern America. Children no longer fall victim to many of 
the infectious diseases which continue to haunt children in 
many other 1ands. 

Overall mortality rates, including infant mortality 
and maternal death rates, have been dramatically reduced, giving 
Americans a life expectancy of nearly 73 years." 

These are significant successes, but the government and 
U.S. society as a whole, must continue to seek ways to secure 
complete social and economic human rights in the United States 
for those still left behind. 

EDUCATION 


The right to a good education, the essential prerequisite 
for a good job to provide economic independence, is inherent 
in the language of Principle VII of the Helsinki Final Act. 

In the United States, the responsibility for ensuring that 
each individual has access to adequate educational opportunities 
rests primarily with the state and local governments, although 
the Federal Government and private institutions play an impor¬ 
tant role as well. A system of free public elementary and 
secondary schools is operated by each state. The states also 
operate reduced-fee college and university systems. In many 
state constitutions, the right to an education is guaranteed, 
and attendance is generally compulsory between the ages of six 
and 16. 

Government statistics show that in the 1975-76 school year, 
the U.S. and its state and local governments spent 67 billion 
dollars for education in public elementary and secondary 
schools, an average of $1,388 per year per student. Total 
expenditure on education at all levels was 120 billion dollars, 
which was almost 8 percent of the Gross National Product for 
1975-76. HEW reports that in 1980 the Federal Government will 
contribute approximately 9 percent toward the overall education 
effort, or 11.6 billion dollars. 

According to HEW, more than 90 percent of all youth in the 
U.S. between the ages of five and 17 are enrolled in school and 
the percentage of the population ages 18-24 enrolled has 
increased from 14 percent in 1950 to over 33 percent in 1977. 

The proportion of minority youth attending college has doubled 
in the last 10 years, according to HEW. Statistics also show 
that the average American today has received almost 12 years of 
formal education, more than those in any other Western nation. 

HEW reports, however, that there are still significant 
differences in educational performance and post-secondary 
enrollment between whites and non-whites and the poor and non- 


104 



poor. Non-whites score much lower on standardized national 
performance tests and, in a 1977 study of literacy, a much 
higher percentage of blacks, about 44 percent, and poor, about 
40 percent, were found to be functionally illiterate. While 
the percentage of blacks enrolled in college doubled between 
1966 and 1976, blacks represent only one-tenth of the population 
of whites enrolled in college. 

Though the federal role in the nation’s education efforts 
is not dramatic in economic terms, it is critical, however, 
in developing new strategies for reaching underserved segments 
of the population and ensuring that education is provided on 
a non-discriminatory basis. HEW, for instance, has the primary 
responsibility for enforcement of several statutes prohibiting 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, 
sex and handicap as they relate to federally assisted educa¬ 
tional programs and activities. These include: 

-- Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national 
origin. 

-- Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, which 
prohibits, with certain exceptions, sex discrimination. 

-- Section 50 4 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which 
prohibits discrimination against qualified handicapped persons 
on the basis of physical or mental handicap. 

-- Title VII of the Education Amendments of 1972 (known 
as the Emergency School Aid Act or ESAA), which provides aid 
to local educational agencies to eliminate minority group 
segregation and discrimination among students and faculty in 
elementary and secondary schools. 

Millions benefit from these laws. They include approxi¬ 
mately 43 million school children in public schools and 11 
million students in college and universities around the 
country. A large number of institutions are subject to these 
laws, including 16,000 school systems and 3,100 colleges and 
universities . 

In 1980, HEW will provide special learning and compensatory 
education to some six and a half million children through Title 
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which 
funds schools in low-income areas to improve programs for educa¬ 
tionally deprived children. This financial assistance will 
also help meet the special educational needs of the children 
of migrant workers and Indians, and children who are handi¬ 
capped, neglected or delinquent. Title I ties in with other 
federal efforts, such as the National School Lunch Program, 
all aimed at creating a break in the cycle of poverty so that 
young persons from impoverished families will not be under- 
educated and undernourished and can have the chance to compete 
in life more equally with their school peers. 

The Migrant Education Program started by the Federal Govern¬ 
ment in 1967, for example, is aimed at compensating for the inter¬ 
ruptions and ineffectiveness of the education migrant children 


103 


receive as they and their parents move about the country seeking 
employment in agricultural and fishing activities. This program 
concentrates on identifying and meeting the special needs of 
migrant children through remedial instruction, health, nutrition 
and psychological services and prevocationa1 training and counsel¬ 
ing. Continuity of instruction is a top priority, with a special 
focus on the individual educational problems of each child. 

Special attention in instruction programs is given to the develop¬ 
ment of the language arts. 

Another section under the Elementary and Secondary Educa¬ 
tion Act provides federal funds for bilingual education programs 
to help children with limited English proficiency to function 
effectively in regular school programs. HEW estimates about 
340,000 children will be assisted through this program in 1980. 

The Federal Government's commitment to providing equal access 
to post-secondary educational opportunities is reflected by many 
programs in the Higher Education Act (HEA). In 1979, of the 3.1 
billion dollars appropriated for HEA programs, 4.8 billion dollars, 
or 94 percent of the total, was appropriated for the student 
assistance programs. These programs of need-based grants, loans, 
and work-study have increasingly become the dominant means by which 
the goal of equal opportunity is pursued. With this financial 
assistance, a student may choose the program and institution which 
best suits that student's educational needs. 

The Basic Educational Opportunity Grant program in 1979 
provided over 2 billion dollars in grant assistance to more than 
two million low-income students. The Supplemental Educational 
Opportunity Grant, College Work-Study, and National Direct Student 
Loan programs provide over 1.2 billion dollars in assistance and 
are administered by post-secondary education institutions to meet 
the individual needs of their students. The 76.73 million dollar 
State Student Incentive Grant program is largely responsible for 
stimulating almost 800 million dollars in student grant aids funded 
by the 36 states and territories. The Guaranteed Student Loan pro¬ 
gram uses non-Federal loan capital supplied primarily by commercial 
lenders to provide loans to post-secondary education students. In 
1979, 1.5 million loans totalling 2.9 billion dollars were gener¬ 
ated by a Federal investment of 953 million dollars. The 120 
million dollar TRIO (Special Programs for Students from Disadvan¬ 
taged Backgrounds) programs are aimed at achieving equal educa¬ 
tional opportunity through information, counseling and academic 
services for students with academic potential from deprived educa¬ 
tional, cultural or economic backgrounds. The Graduate and Pro¬ 
fessional Opportunities program provides institutional grants and 
individual fellowships for qualified students, particularly minor¬ 
ities and women, who are underrepresented in the professions and 
other graduate fields. 

In 1978, passage of the 1.2 billion dollar Middle Income 
Student Assistance Act expanded most of these programs to include 
financial assistance to mi dd1e-income students while, at the same 
time, ensuring that low-income students are the prime recipients 


106 


of Federal assistance. Reauthorization of the Higher Education 
Act in 1980 will undoubtably continue the objective of educational 
opportunity by further increasing the amount of student assistance 
available to students from families of all income levels. 

Educational Desegregation 

One of the most pressing educational issues in the U.S. is 
school desegregation. Twenty-five years ago, a unanimous Supreme 
Court decision declared in the landmark case of Brown v. the Board 
of Education that racial segregation in public schools was uncon¬ 
stitutional, even if facilities could be made "equal" for blacks 
and whites. Operation of separate educational systems is "inher¬ 
ently unequal," the Supreme Court said, affirming that school 
desegregation is essential to ensure a quality education for all 
children and young people, regardless of their race or ethnicity. 

Although much progress has been made, the school desegrega¬ 
tion effort in the U.S. today is far from complete. Government 
statistics show that in 1974, four of every 10 black students and 
three of every 10 Hispanic pupils attended schools that were at 
least 90 percent minority. In 1976, the last year for which such 
data are available, 46 percent of all minority pupils attended 
school in at least moderately segregated districts. 

Most school districts that have implemented desegregation 
programs since 19 75 have adjusted relatively calmly. Desegrega¬ 
tion plans of varying scope have been implemented in many areas 
including Dallas, Dayton, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Kansas City, San 
Diego, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle and Wilmington. 

However, by most estimates, the desegregation process is still 
slow. Community leadership is lacking in some cases, and many dis¬ 
tricts are still involved in litigation. In some instances reseg¬ 
regation may be occurring and minority concerns about possible dis¬ 
crimination in student discipline and inadequate hiring and promo¬ 
tion of minority faculty have been expressed in various districts. 

An independent, government-funded body which has been closely 
involved in monitoring school desegration efforts in the United 
States is the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In a 1976 report, 
Desegregation of the Nation's Public Schools, the Commission urged 
leaders at the national, state and local levels to accept the fact 
that desegregation is a Constitutional imperative. The Commission 
called upon the Federal Government to strengthen and expand pro¬ 
grams and to take more vigorous action to enforce laws which con¬ 
tribute to the development of desegregated communities. In 1977, 
the Commission urged Congress to make new funds available for vol¬ 
untary efforts to achieve urban desegregation. The Commission asked 
HEW to encourage school districts to participate in such a program. 

Since 1977, HEW has strengthened its enforcement of Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This came about in part as a 
result of settlement in December of 1977 and January of 1978 of 
three long-standing laws suits that charged HEW with inadequate 


107 






enforcement of Title VI and also Title IX of the Education Amend¬ 
ments of 1972. The settlement order calls for resolution of back- 
logged individual discrimination complaints and more frequent Title 
VI compliance reviews in elementary, secondary and higher educa¬ 
tion. As a result, HEW has established nearly 900 new positions 
to assist in carrying out these tasks. 

In its 1976 report on desegregation, the Civil Rights Commis¬ 
sion recommended that the President designate an appropriate White 
House official to coordinate all the resources of the Executive 
Branch to accomplish the desegregation mandate. The Commission also 
urged HEW to cut off federal funds to those school districts which 
fail to take appropriate steps to halt discrimination. It called 
upon the Congress to provide positive support for the Constitution¬ 
al imperative of desegregating U.S. public schools, rather than 
creating more legislative roadblocks. The Civil Rights Commission 
believes recent Congressional restrictions are preventing federal 
agencies from directing, permitting or withholding funds for the 
purpose of requiring or encouraging the use of busing for desegre¬ 
gation of schools and have undermined the efforts of the Executive 
and Judicial Branches. The Commission maintains that the ultimate 
achievement of the goal of equal educational opportunity remains 
the cornerstone of all racial equality in a pluristic society. 

In higher education, HEW figures show that minority enrollment 
rose rapidly between 1966 and 1976. In 1976, black enrollment 
reached 10.6 percent of total enrollment and Hispanic enrollment 
was 4.2 percent. These percentages are nearly in direct proportion 
to the percentages of blacks and Hispanics in the total U.S. popu¬ 
lation. 

Minority enrollment in professional schools has slowed, how¬ 
ever, and remains disproportionately low. The total number of 
black first-year medical students decreased in 1977-78 while the 
overall first-year enrollment grew. The percentage enrollment 
of American Indians, Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans also 
dropped from earlier levels. 

The Civil Rights Commission attributes this decline in part 
to economic pressures and the controversy over affirmative action 
programs. In June of 1978, the Supreme Court in the celebrated 
Bakke case tried to strike a balance by approving the use of race¬ 
conscious admissions programs while disallowing specific minority 
"quota" programs. 

Desegregation efforts in higher education also have been 
stepped up. In 1977, for instance, HEW developed criteria for 
higher education plans for states still in violation of Title VI. 

In 1978, HEW attention focused chiefly on six states -- Arkansas, 
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Virginia -- which 
had submitted provisionally acceptable plans as required. Negotia¬ 
tions with some of these states for fully acceptable plans have 
con tinued. 


108 


While problems remain, the U.S. has made great strides in its 
efforts to promote access to quality education foi all. Twenty- 
five years ago, no black children attended public schools with 
whites in the South. Segregation was required in Washington, D.C., 
and 20 of the then 48 states. Black schools generally received 
only a small portion of the resources made available to white 
schools in most states. Today, southern schools are among the 
most desegregated schools in the nation. Even where all-black 
and all-white schools still exist, the differences between 
resources of these schools have largely been eliminated. And 
today's laws and practices mandate special educational assistance 
and advantages to minorities, which, in time, will help narrow 
the educational barriers for all the nation's youth. 

111ite r acy 

The U.S. has been criticized for a high illiteracy rate, 
affecting as many as 23 million adult Americans, one source 
charges. But HEW officials say the literacy statistics in the 
U.S. vary depending on the definition used. If literacy is 
defined as the ability to read and write a simple message, the 
1970 U.S. Census indicated that 1 percent of U.S. citizens over 
the age of 14 (one to two million persons) are illiterate. 

If the definition of literacy is expanded to include such 
tasks as the ability to use reference materials (such as dic¬ 
tionaries), the proportion of illiterates increases. A 1972 
HEW study showed 8 percent of adults in the 25-35 year age range 
had difficulty with this type of task. This does not, however, 
mean these people are functionally illiterate or necessarily 
imply an inability to function well in society. 

Despite a number of encouraging signals, the government is 
still not satisfied with the nation's progress in eliminating 
illiteracy. A new HEW program has been initiated to help schools 
achieve the fundamental goal of competency in reading, writing and 
basic mathematics for all their students. The 1980 HEW budget 
includes funds for a special effort focused on functionally illit¬ 
erate individuals over the age of 16. Additionally, the National 
Institutes of Health and Education will spend more than 30 million 
dollars in 1979 on research to better understand literacy. 

Federal policy since 1963 has been the guiding force behind 
equal access and opportunity with the dual aim of ending delib¬ 
erate, illegal segregation and the improvement of academic 
achievement, particularly for the disadvantaged. Much has been 
accomplished, but difficult tasks remain. Government at the 
federal, state and local levels are committed to continue to 
support and encourage the move toward complete school integra¬ 
tion and to work for better academic achievement. 

EMPLOYMENT 


Principle VII of the Final Act is very general in its treat¬ 
ment of fundamental economic rights. It merely states that the 


109 




participating states "will promote and encourage the effective 
exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other 
rights and freedoms all of which derive from the inherent dignity 
of the human person and are essential for his free and full devel¬ 
opment." There are no explicit Helsinki commitments in the employ¬ 
ment area. However, employment and labor rights are clearly an 
essential component of economic rights. 

Different states and social systems have different concepts of 
what constitutes economic rights and the best means of attaining 
them. Certain CSCE signatories have stipulated that economic 
rights are more fundamental than other human rights. Consequently, 
a major criticism of U.S. implementation of the human rights pro¬ 
visions of the Final Act have been allegations of violations of 
fundamental economic rights, most notably the right to work. The 
U.S. record in this area has also been criticized by various domes¬ 
tic groups which allege that not enough has been done to overcome 
discrimination and other inadequacies in employment. 

Charges of U.S. Shortcomings 

Widespread unemployment, which is alleged by foreign critics 
to range anywhere from six to 15 million, is the most common criti¬ 
cism. An aggravating factor, although obviously not a violation 
of the Final Act, is the alleged unreliability of the U.S. Bureau 
of Labor Statistics' figures on unemployment which do not include 
persons who have stopped searching for work. Other critics assert 
that blacks and other minority groups, especially minority youth, 
are victims of job discrimination. 

For example, critics cite statistics alleging that two black 
workers are fired for every white, that 52.3 percent of black youth 
are unemployed and that the unemployment rate among black, Puerto 
Rican and Chicano youths runs from 40 to 60 percent. Additional 
charges point to wage discrimination against white women and minor¬ 
ities and inadequate or expired workers' benefits. High injury and 
illness rates are said to exist in certain types of work, notably 
the iron, steel, textile, and coal-mining industries. Government 
efforts to deal with these problems are dismissed as inadequate. 

The Role of the U.S. Labor Department 

The U.S. Department of Labor is the government agency directly 
responsible for many aspects of U.S. compliance with the Principle 
VII provision relating to economic rights. It is charged with 
promoting the welfare of workers in the U.S., improving working 
conditions and increasing the opportunities for profitable employ¬ 
ment. The Department administers over 130 federal labor laws, 
which guarantee workers' rights to safe and healthy working condi¬ 
tions, a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay, freedom from employ¬ 
ment discrimination, unemployment insurance and workers' compensa¬ 
tion. More recently, the Department has intensified its efforts 
to combat unemployment and discrimination in the job market against 
youth, the elderly, minority group members, women, the handicapped, 
migrant workers and other groups. 


110 




Unemployment: How to Measure It 


While it may seem a simple matter for the layman, an effec¬ 
tive system for measuring employment and unemployment is a cru¬ 
cial component of any policy designed to improve the employ¬ 
ment situation. According to the Department of Labor, the U.S. 
has been among the leaders in developing techniques for accur¬ 
ately measuring unemployment. As a result of research undertaken 
in the 1930's, a set of concepts was developed under which an 
individual is classified as unemployed during a specified period 
he or she was not working or looking for work. This approach 
was first used in the 1940 Census of the United States and is 
now the worldwide standard. 

In order to measure the seriousness of its unemployment 
problems and to gauge the success of its programs, the U.S. con¬ 
ducts the largest monthly labor force survey in the world -- 
52,000 households, up from 21,000 in 1945. To ensure that the 
statistical system and methods used to measure employment and 
unemployment are as accurate as possible, two advisory councils 
meet several times a year. The Labor Research Advisory Council 
provides the labor union perspective and the Business Research 
Advisory Council provides the viewpoint of the business 
corrmun i t y. 

To test the effectiveness of these methods, a comprehensive 
review is currently underway by the congressional1y established 
National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics. 
Preliminary indications are that the Commission will recommend 
a further expansion of the monthly labor force survey to provide 
even more information for geographical subdivisions of the 
nation. The Commission is also exploring ways of providing 
information on the link between unemployment, family income 
and economic hardship. 

However, unemployment figures alone do not portray the 
full extent of joblessness. According to the U.S. Civil Rights 
Commission, "discouraged workers," those who "want jobs but 
have stopped looking because they think they cannot find them," 
are not included in official, overall employment figures. More¬ 
over, official employment statistics do not include many part- 
time workers -- three million in 1977 according to the Civil 
Rights Commission -- who would prefer full-time work. 

U.S. Government Efforts 


There has been a determined effort to promote employment 
in the U.S. Concern with the severity of the unemployment prob¬ 
lem prompted the late Senator Hubert Humphrey and Congressman 
Augustus Hawkins to sponsor the Full Employment and Balanced 
Growth Act of 1977. In mid-November of 1977, President Carter 
endorsed a revised version of this bill which established a 



national goal of reducing the overall unemployment rate from 
7 to 4 percent by 1983. The revised "Humphrey-Hawkins Bill" 
proposed that the Federal Government go on record in support 
of full employment and called for every effort to reduce differ¬ 
entials in unemployment rates among minorities, youth and 
women. Full employment in this context is considered by econo¬ 
mists to be anything below 4 percent unemployment which would 
take into account workers in job transition and those tem¬ 
porarily handicapped. 

Employment Among Blacks and Other Minorities 

Since the Helsinki Final Act there have been great improve¬ 
ments in employment opportunities for blacks in the U.S. 

Between 1975 and 1978, the levels of employment for blacks grew 
by 1.1 million or 14.7 percent versus 8.1 million or 10.7 per¬ 
cent for whites. Nevertheless, unemployment among minorities 
has been a major target of criticism of U.S. implementation 
of the Helsinki accords. Specifically, there have been accusa¬ 
tions 40 to 50 percent of minorities are unemployed in the U.S. 
While not nearly as high as frequently alleged, unemployment 
rates for minorities continue to be considerably higher than 
those for whites. Although numerous federal projects designed 
to increase minority employment have closed the gap in recent 
years, the rate of black unemployment continues to be more than 
twice that of white unemployment. In 1978, according to the 
Department of Labor, the annual rate of unemployment for whites 
was 5.2 percent as opposed to 12.6 percent for blacks. Since 
1975, white unemployment has declined by 2.6 percent while black 
unemployment has declined by 2.1 percent. Civil Rights Commis¬ 
sion statistics show that the fourth quarter of 1978, unemploy¬ 
ment rates for adult white males had dropped to 3.3 percent 
while the figure for black males was 7.6 percent and 8.9 percent 
for His panics. 

In 1978, black teenage unemployment was 38.6 percent (con¬ 
siderably lower than the 52 percent figure alleged by Soviet 
critics), while the rate for white teenagers was 13.9 percent. 
The unemployment rate for white teenagers declined by 6.0 per¬ 
cent between 1975 and 1978, while the rate for black teenagers 
declined by only .8 percent. 

Although still lagging behind levels for whites, black 
employment grew substantially during 1978, increasing by 4 per¬ 
cent in one year. Although less than the 6.3 percent change 
experienced in 1977, this employment growth lowered the black 
unemployment rate by 1.2 percent that year. 

Black teenagers fared better too. The 36.9 percent 
unemployment rate for black teenagers at the end of 1978 was 
3.7 percent below the rate in December of 1977. The number 
of employed grew in 1978 by 7.6 percent. 


112 


Despite this progress, during February of 1979 there were 
still 1.45 million black workers unemployed. Unemployment for 
workers of Hispanic origin is also still high, according to 
the Civil Rights Commission. While the average jobless rates 
for Hispanics dropped from 11.5 percent in 1976 to 10 percent 
in 1977, unemployment among Hispanics, as of the end of 1977, 
was still 1.6 times higher than among whites. The average 
unemployment rate for Hispanic teenagers fell slightly from 
23.1 percent in 1976 to 22.3 percent in 1977, but the actual 
number increased slightly as a result of their increased rate 
of entry into the labor force. The average rate of joblessness 
for Hispanic women was about twice that of white women in 1977. 

The CETA Program 

Significant groups within the U.S. still do not have equal 
access to good jobs for a variety of reasons, including a lack 
of skills, experience or education, or because of racial, 
sexual, ethnic or age discrimination. The U.S. Government, 
however, has in recent years taken numerous steps to improve 
the problem, and employment programs for the economically dis¬ 
advantaged have become a top priority. For example, the Depart 
ment of Labor's expenditures for employment and training pro¬ 
grams have gradually increased to the current level of 10.6 
billion dollars in Fiscal Year 1979. The fundamental basis 
for this expansion is an awareness that the labor market has 
not provided sufficient employment opportunities for low- 
skilled, inexperienced workers and that government intervention 
can alleviate problems of the structurally unemployed 
("structurally unemployed" refers to those facing long-standing 
prob1ems in obtaining work due to an absence of jobs suitable 
to their skills or other chronic problems). The Comprehensive 
Employment and Training Act (CETA) was passed by Congress in 
1973 for precisely this purpose and has benefited hundreds of 
thousands of economically disadvantaged Americans. CETA, which 
is administered by the Department of Labor, was established 
to provide training for public service jobs and other services 
leading to unsubsidized employment for economically disadvan¬ 
taged persons, including the unemployed, the underemployed and 
welfare recipients. Moreoever, CETA gives financial assistance 
to state and local governments to enable them to furnish train¬ 
ing and employment opportunities. CETA also provides funds 
for the Job Corps Program. The CETA system is made up of 
approximately 460 prime sponsors, many of whom are mayors, 
governors and other state and local elected officials. These 
prime sponsors have the principal responsibility for administer 
ing the CETA program at the local level. 

CETA contains eight major sections or "Titles." Title I 
established a nationwide program of comprehensive employment 
and training services to be implemented primarily by states 


113 


and units of local government representing 100,000 or more 
population. Title II authorized a program of developmental 
public service employment in areas with 6.5 percent or higher 
employment for three consecutive months. Title III provided 
for nationally sponsored and supervised training, employment 
and job placement programs for youth, the elderly, Native 
Americans, migrant workers and others. Title IV authorized 
the Job Corps, a program of intensive education training and 
counseling for disadvantaged youth, primarily in residential 
areas. Title VI authorized a temporary emergency program of 
public service employment to help ease the impact of high 
unemployment while Title VIII established the Youth Adult 
Conservation Corps. The two remaining titles dealt with general 
considerations. 

According to the Department of Labor, one-third of the 
increase in black employment since 1977 can be attributed 
directly to the CETA jobs system. During Fiscal Year 1978, 
328,000 blacks participated in the CETA Public Service Employ¬ 
ment (PSE) programs representing 27 percent of all the partici¬ 
pants in those programs. Blacks also constituted a significant 
portion of the participants in CETA youth programs during Fiscal 
Year 1978. There were approximately 460,000 black participants 
in the Summer Program for Economically Disadvantaged Youth 
(SPEDY), representing 48.7 percent of the total number of 
participants. Nearly 120,000 black youths participated in the 
Youth Employment Training Program (YETP), representing 36.8 
percent of the total. The nearly 40,000 blacks enrolled in 
the Job Corps constituted 56 percent of the total number of 
participants. In October of 1978, about 22 percent of all 
employed black teenagers received employment through the CETA 
youth programs. 

In 1977, the Carter Administration’s Economic Stimulus 
Package more than doubled the number of Public Service Employ¬ 
ment (PSE) positions under CETA raising the total to 750,000. 
During Fiscal Year 1978, 77.9 percent of the participants in 
the programs were economically disadvantaged. Overall, the 
economically disadvantaged have constituted more than 86 percent 
of all new CETA enrol lees. 

Total enrollment in the program declined significantly 
in the last six months of 1978. This decline is cause for 
concern since CETA jobs have been and continue to be a major 
part of the Administration’s strategy for achieving full employ¬ 
ment by 1983 and have been an important factor in reducing the 
unemployment rate to its present 5.7 percent level. Part of 
the decline can be attributed to the re-evaluation of the entire 
CETA program which took place during 1978. It was not until 
the last day of the last session that Congress finally passed 
the new CETA law. The uncertainties caused by the delay in 
final enactment of CETA, together with the fall in unemployment, 


have contributed to the decline in interest in public service 
jobs. The new CETA bill and the continuing funding regulations 
enacted in October of 1978 reflected this decline in interest. 
Growing disillusionment in Congress with certain aspects of 
the program forced CETA to cut its expenditures by about half 
a billion dollars and its jobs program by 100,000 positions. 

New CETA Youth Programs 

Despite the recent decline of interest in certain PSE 
positions, CETA's youth programs continue to be instrumental 
in coping with unemployment among minority youth. A major 
initiative introduced in 1977 under CETA's Youth Employment 
and Demonstration Project Act (YEDPA) created four programs 
to deal with special youth employment problems. 

(1) The Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Projects are 
designed to help economically disadvantaged youth complete high 
school. Sixteen to 1 9-year-o1ds, in selected geographic areas, 
are guaranteed a year-round job if they agree to attend high 
s choo 1 . 


(2) The Youth Community Conservation and Improvement 
Project is designed to develop the vocational potential of 
jobless youth through supervised work of tangible community 
benefit. The project is for unemployed 16-1o-19-year olds with 
preference given to those not in school who have had the most 
problems in finding jobs. 

(3) The Youth Employment and Training Programs are designed 
to enhance the job prospects and career preparation of low- 
income youths aged 14 through 21 who have the most difficulty 
entering the labor market. Those eligible are youths from 
families whose incomes average no more than $8,900 per year. 
Young people from families with lower incomes receive 
preference. 

(4) The Young Adult Conservation Corps -- patterned after 
the New Deal's Civilian Conservation Corps -- is supposed to 
give young people experience in occupational skills through 
work on conservation and other projects on federal and non- 
federal property. Youths aged 16 through 23, who are unemployed 
and out of school, are eligible. 


When fully operational these programs will create 
200,000 new jobs. During 1980, a full scale evaluation 
programs and demographic trends in the labor force will 
pleted. The review will enable the Department of Labor 
a reauthorization of its youth employment program based 
experience of what has and has not worked. 


about 
of these 
be com- 
to seek 
on the 


115 





Despite the opportunities the various CETA programs have 
created, there are problems with the system. The U.S. Civil 
Rights Commission has pointed out that in order to make the CETA 
programs truly effective, those administering the programs will 
have to take steps to assure the placement of minority workers 
in permanent jobs after the completion of training. Public 
service jobs tend to provide only temporary relief for unem¬ 
ployed persons seeking permanent employment. With CETA-related 
projects employing nearly 22 percent of all employed black 
youth, the need for adequate placement in permanent jobs is 
of utmost importance. According to the Civil Rights Commission, 
CETA officials have generally been only half as successful in 
placing minorities and women as they have been in placing white 
males in unsubsidized jobs upon program completion. Other 
critics have claimed that despite good intentions, CETA has 
only made a small dent in the structural unemployment problems 
and that CETA assistance is not reaching those most seriously 
in need. Overall, however, it seems that despite continuing 
problems, CETA programs remain a vital part of U.S. efforts 
to deal with the difficult employment problems of our minorities 
and youth. 

CETA and Other Government Agencies 

HEW has also played a key role in administering CETA 
programs. Policy planning and technical assistance activities 
are carried out by HEW national and regional staff in order 
to provide HEW-funded supportive services to participants in 
CETA programs. These include general social services, health 
and educational programs and special services designed for those 
who are particularly disadvantaged, such as the elderly, youth, 
handicapped, migrants and Native Americans. HEW has also been 
involved in establishing special programs for specific groups, 
particularly the elderly. It has supplied assistance to a new, 
public service employment program which provides part-time work 
for the elderly. In addition, HEW's Administration on Aging 
works together with the Department of Labor to increase full¬ 
time employment for the elderly taking part in the CETA pro¬ 
grams. A pilot program has been developed within HEW which, 
when implemented, will establish a mechanism at the state level 
to increase employment opportunities, as well as services for 
older persons. 

The Department of Agriculture also works closely with the 
Department of Labor in administering various CETA-related 
programs. One of those is the Young Adult Conservation Corps 
which is part of the Youth Employment Demonstration Project 
Act of CETA. The Job Corps Program, which is administered under 
the provision of CETA, enrolled approximately 7,000 young people 
at forest service centers during Fiscal Year 1978. In coopera¬ 
tion with the Department of Labor, 17 Job Corps Civilian Conser¬ 
vation Centers on national forests provided educational and 


1 16 


vocational training. The Forest Service of the Department of 
Agriculture also cooperates with the Department of Labor in 
administering the Senior Community Service Employment Program 
which is designed for economically disadvantaged people more 
than 55-years-old or older who live primarily in rural areas. 
Enrollees receive supplemental income, personal and job-related 
counseling, supervision, yearly physical examinations, and, 
in some cases, placement in regular unsubsidized jobs. 

Unemployment Compensation 

The U.S. has an extensive federal and state unemployment 
compensation program. In 1977, 10.4 million individuals re¬ 

ceived a total of 15 billion dollars in benefit payments under 
state and federal unemployment compensation programs, a dramatic 
increase from 6.5 billion dollars in 1976. Each of the states, 
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have separate unemploy¬ 
ment insurance laws subject to broad federal guidelines. As 
of 1975, nearly 90 percent of the work force in the U.S. was 
covered by some unemployment insurance program, a coverage 
exceeded only by Sweden (with 100 percent). 

« 

Under the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976, 
unemployment insurance coverage was expanded effective January 
1, 1978, to include nine million additional people, primarily 

state and local workers on large farms and workers in non-profit 
elementary and secondary schools. With this change, about 97 
percent of all wage and salaried employment was covered by some 
form of unemployment compensation. 

In the past several years, various legislative actions 
improved U.S. unemployment compensation systems. Partly as 
a response to the high unemployment rates in 1975 and 1976, 
Congress extended the period for which benefits were paid to 
the unemployed. For example, in 1976 unemployed persons whose 
regular benefits were exhausted were eligible for further 
benefits under the Federal-State Extended Benefits Program. 

When these benefits were exhausted, they were eligible for the 
Federal Supplemental Benefits Program. 

In addition, the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 
1976 established a National Commission on Unemployment Compensa¬ 
tion to study and analyze the extent to which existing programs 
are affective, particularly in view of changes in the last 
decade in work patterns and the increase in the number of 
working women. The Commission is expected to issue its final 
report in mid-1980. 

Job Discrimination 


Job discrimination persists in spite of the many federal 
and state programs designed to overcome it. In an effort to 


117 




better deal with the problem, President Carter recently re¬ 
organized federal programs to enforce equal employment oppor¬ 
tunity. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC) has been given greater responsibility and authority and 
it is now the Federal Government's main agency for fighting 
job discrimination and assuring minorities an equal chance in 
the U.S. economy. The reorganized EEOC's new structure stream¬ 
lines the federal process for combating job discrimination and 
follows the Civil Rights Commission's recommendations for such 
reform. As a result of this reorganization, the EEOC's field 
structure has been overhauled with more direct communication 
established between headquarters and the field. 

Rather than looking for instances of discrimination, the 
EEOC reacts to charges made by individuals or groups. Persons 
who think that they have been discriminated against by an 
employer, labor organization or employment agency may file a 
charge of discrimination with the Commission, which the Commis¬ 
sion must then investigate and attempt to conciliate. The 
majority of cases are resolved through conciliation. Pursuant 
to its investigations, the Commission is authorized to subpoena 
documents and testimony. If the Commission finds there is 
reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, and con¬ 
ciliation efforts have failed, the EEOC may then go to federal 
district court or litigate on behalf of the charging party or 
parties. Because Congress recognized the difficulty in enforc¬ 
ing the law by merely encouraging voluntary efforts at concilia¬ 
tion, the EEOC, in 1972, was given the authority to sue. 

Since 1972, the Commission, according to its own data, has 
represented about 1,200 cases. In most cases, relief was sought 
for a class or general category of complaint, not simply for 
the individual complainant. During Fiscal Year 1978, the EEOC 
represented about 200 cases and obtained favorable settlement in 
160 of them. Over 24 million dollars obtained in these settle¬ 
ments were paid directly to the victims of discrimination. 

Another important way to discourage discrimination is the 
use of federal contracting authorization. Responsibility for 
the administration of affirmative action programs of federal 
contractors has been consolidated within the Department of Labor 
under the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. This 
office has responsibility for enforcement of Executive Orders 
which prohibit discrimination in employment and require affirma¬ 
tive action by government contractors on the basis of race, 
color, religion, national origin or sex. The Contract Com¬ 
pliance Program is administered by 11 departments and agencies, 
the so-called "compliance agencies," which monitor the equal 
employment compliance of government contractors by conducting 
surveys, reviewing affirmative action plans and investigating 
complaints. The Compliance Office establishes the administra¬ 
tive standards and procedures to be followed by the compliance 


118 


agencies and audits their performance. It also is responsible 
for the enforcement of statutes requiring government contractors 
to take affirmative action to employ and advance qualified, 
handicapped individuals and veterans. Contractors who fail 
to comply with any of these requirements may be debarred from 
bidding on future contracts. Despite these efforts to combat 
discrimination, the Civil Rights Commission has pointed to 
problems which persist, including inadequate action by some 
state government agencies and seniority-based layoffs. 

Wages and Occupational Status 

One of the charges made by certain CSCE states is that the 
"average Anerican's" wages have been declining. This is not true 
except for certain short-term periods. Since real earnings have 
tended to fluctuate sharply over the short-run, it is possible 
to select pairs of years when declines were recorded. However, 
over the past 10 years, a pattern of gradual improvement in 
real earnings and incomes can be seen. During this period, 
real average hourly earnings have increased by 6.2 percent. 

In addition, increases in total compensation have been 
even larger than increases in wages in recent years, reflecting 
a very substantial rise in employer contributions for social 
insurance, pensions, health benefits, etc. However, it must 
be recognized that a continuing problem in the area of wages 
and employment is that minorities and women earn, on the 
average, less than white men. Affirmative action and other 
programs launched by the Federal Government have also been aimed 
at alleviating this problem. 

Pove r t y 

_ j 


One prominent charge leveled at the U.S. is that the 
poverty program initiated by the Johnson Administration has 
been a failure. However, the accomplishments since the program 
started have been significant. The number of persons living 
below the poverty level in the U.S. has declined by 12 million 
persons since the enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act 
of 1964. In 1964, 36 million persons, or 19 percent of the 
population, were below the poverty level. By 1977, the number 
of persons below poverty had declined to 24.7 million, repre¬ 
senting 11 percent of the total population. This represents 
a decline of 31.4 percent of the number of persons below poverty 
and a decline in the poverty rate of 7.4 percent. 

Unfortunately, large disparities in poverty rates still 
exist between whites and minority groups. In 1977, 7.7 million 
or 31.3 percent of all blacks were living below poverty level, 
a decline from 8.9 million or 41.8 percent in 1966. The number 
of whites living below poverty levels declined from 19.3 million 


119 




in 1966 to 16.4 million in 1977. Bureau of Census statistics 
for 1975 show Hispanics were two and one-half times more likely 
to live below the poverty level than whites. 

While the continued existence of poverty in the U.S. is 
deplorable, some progress has been made. It is noteworthy, for 
example, that the majority of participants in all CETA programs 
during Fiscal Year 1978 were economically disadvantaged prior 
to their enrollment in CETA. The Administration's new Welfare 
Reform proposal should help those living below the poverty line 
by providing for employment and training for parents in low- 
income families. A primary goal of this proposed program is 
to ensure that parents have the opportunity to earn a basic 
income either through a private sector or public service job 
from which wages and supplementary income assistance can assure 
an income above poverty level. 

Occupational Safety and Health 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970 is 
designed to "provide every working man and woman in the Nation 
with a safe and healthful workplace." The CSCE Commission finds 
that, while this goal has not yet been reached, significant 
progress has been made. 

OSHA has been the target of much criticism, particularly in 
its initial years. Yet from 1972 to 1976, occupational injury 
and illness incidence rates decreased almost 16 percent. There 
were even larger decreases for certain highly hazardous indus¬ 
tries such as contract construction, where the injury/ illness 
rate fell 20 percent. Worker fatality rates in this period 
also fell nearly 10 percent. 

Perhaps even more significant than these statistics is 
the heightened concern for workplace safety and health that 
has been promoted as a result of the OSHA legislation. This 
concern is reflected in the increase in collective bargaining 
agreements with safety and health provisions, the formation 
of labor management safety and health committees, and the 
increase in safety and health expertise employed by industry 
and labor. An indication of the heightened awareness of the 
need for workplace safety and health is the increase in the 
number of federal safety inspectors and hygienists from 7 5 4 
in 1974, to 1,504 in 1978. 

In 1977, OSHA's basic approach was redirected. Ninety-five 
percent of its discretionary inspections were focused on the 
high hazard industries. As a result the percentage of serious, 
willful and repeated violations discovered by OSHA inspectors 
climbed from 3 percent in 1976, to 27 percent in the first nine 
months of 1979. OSHA policy now provides that any complaint 
which may constitute an imminent danger, whether received from 


120 



an employee or any other source, is to be inspected within 24 
hours. Complaints about conditions that may represent serious 
hazards to workers are to be investigated within three working 
days of receipt of the complaint. As a result of this policy, 
employee complaints are becoming the basis of an increased 
portion of total OSHA inspections. 

OSHA recently instituted a major grant program in the area 
of training and education to increase employee and employer 
awareness of safety and health hazards. Research is underway 
in OSHA and in the related agency in HEW, the National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health, to analyze specific types 
of accidents and evaluate the effectiveness of specific safety 
standards. 

The basic measurement of the size of the health and safety 
problem in industry is the lost workday injury rate. Using 
this indicator, which covers injuries resulting in at least 
one lost workday, the Department of Labor reported that about 
one out of 27 workers suffered an injury on the job in 1977. 

This is considerably lower than the figure of one out of 10 
workers mentioned in the press of another CSCE country. 

The Department of Labor has issued, or is currently working 
on, standards covering carcinogens, asbestos, pesticides, lead, 
benzene and cotton dust, in an effort to combat chemical hazards 

in the workplace. However, the state of knowledge about occupa¬ 
tional exposure and disease in humans is just developing. The 

long latency periods between exposure and the onset of disease 
make it difficult to determine cause-effect relationships. 

One preliminary U.S. research effort in the health area, 
reported in the press of the Soviet Union, surveyed a sample 
of work-places to determine potential exposure to toxic 
compounds and processes, and found that nearly one out of every 
four workers was potentially exposed. This is a problem which 
affects workers in hazardous industries worldwide and, as the 
survey shows, the U.S. is making efforts to learn as much as 
possible about this problem. 

As an aid to small business, on-site consultation has been 
expanded and federal matching funds to the states for such 
consultation have been drastically increased. Presently, 
consultation is available in almost every state, either through 
a state program or from private consultative sources under 
contract with OSHA. Consultants advise employers on recognizing 
and eliminating workplace hazards at no cost to employers, with 
preference given to small business employers in high-hazard 
industries. 

In the area of mine safety, the Federal Mine Safety and 
Health Act of 1977 contained new provisions which extended 
enforcement activity, provided for an increased number of 


121 


complete inspections of mines, specified several new miners' 
rights and directed new or additional enforcement activities 
in the areas of mine rescue and toxic substances. Under the 
Federal Mine Safety Administration's "resident inspection 
program," federal inspectors are assigned to conduct safety 
checks daily at potentially dangerous coal mines. 


Black lung disease among coal miners is one of the most 
difficult and prevalent hazards encountered in any workplace. 
Progress has been made in implementing the Labor Department's 
black lung benefits program, which was strengthened in 1978 
with the signing by President Carter of the Black Lung enefits 
Reform Act of 1977 and the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 
1977. These Acts, which are the result of over four years of 
comprehensive Congressional review of the black lung program, 
have removed restrictive provisions in the old law. The former 
restrictions prevented a large number of claimants, who would 
otherwise have been eligible, from receiving benefits. Reforms 
were also made in the financing provisions of the program. 

Trade Unions 

Criticism charging that labor union activists in the U.S. 
are threatened with imprisonment for participation in strikes 
are untrue. In fact, the government provides extensive protec¬ 
tion for workers who act in defense of their interests. Over 
the years, legislation has been adopted to provide government 
support for employees' basic trade union rights including the 
right to strike. Since 1935, the landmark National Labor Rela¬ 
tions Act (NLRA) and the 1947 Labor-Management Relations Act 
have provided protection for all workers who v/ish to organize 
into trade unions and have guaranteed the right of such unions 
to bargain with their employers. A later basic law relating 
to trade union rights is the Labor-Management Reporting and 
Disclosure Act of 1959. Title I of the Act, designated the 
"Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations," sets forth 
certain basic rights guaranteed to trade union members by 
federal law, including the right to nominate candidates for 
union leadership, to vote in elections or referendums of the 
labor organization, and to attend membership meetings. 


The system of collective bargaining promoted by the NLRA 
provides millions of American workers with an opportunity to 
have a direct choice in setting their own wages and working 
conditions. To enforce its basic guarantees, the NLRA estab¬ 
lished a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This indepen¬ 
dent federal agency has two principal responsibilities. First, 
the Board is responsible for resolving representation disputes, 
including secret-ba11ot elections. Second, the NLRB is respon¬ 
sible for enforcing measures against "unfair labor practices," 
which typically involve conduct interfering with the right of 
employees to participate in or refrain from organizing activi- 


122 



ties, and which inhibit free collective bargaining, or violate 
other legitimate interests or rights of those party to a labor 
dispute. 

While the system of collective bargaining promoted by the 
NLRA has been generally successful, some of the difficulties 
which have arisen are illustrated by the trade union movement's 
15-year campaign to organize J.P. Stevens and Co., a large tex¬ 
tile firm. This case has been cited in criticism of trade union 
rights in the U.S. In the latest of several NLRB rulings, J.P. 
Stevens and Co. was held to have bargained in bad faith for 
almost two years -- with no intention of reaching a contract 
-- after employees at seven plants voted to have the Amalgamated 
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, serve as their 
agent. The Board found that the textile company's bargaining 
strategy produced unfair labor practice violations that did 
not encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargain¬ 
ing. The Board ordered the textile company to bargain in good 
faith and directed it to take other remedial action. Thus, 
the Board has acted in defense of workers' rights in keeping 
with the spirit of the Helsinki Final Act. 

Since the U.S. was criticized in 1973 by an International 
Labor Organization (ILO) Committee of Experts, the right of 
public employees to join labor unions has become increasingly 
recognized. Union membership for public employees is protected 
by the right of association stemming from the First and 14th 
Amendments. If municipal employees are discharged because they 
have joined a union, they have recourse under federal law. 

State statutes providing that no person will be denied public 
employment for having been a member of a labor union, have, 
in recent years, been invoked to invalidate city ordinances 
forbidding municipal employees to join labor unions. 

Cone 1u sion 


The foregoing analysis of employment in the United States 
underscores the importance attached to economic rights and 
opportunity in American society. To fulfill its obligations 
under the CSCE Final Act, the U.S. Government has initiated 
numerous programs to remedy existing inequities. Efforts to 
ensure maximum employment continue in the main through various 
CETA programs, while energetic steps have been taken to combat 
job discrimination and perfect the system of unemployment 
compensation. New measures have been undertaken to help make 
the work place safer and healthier. Trade union rights have 
been extended to a wider range of workers than ever before. 

Although there have been and continue to be improvements 
in the U.S. record, the need for further improvement is evident 
in regard to employment opportunities for minority youths, 
blacks, Hispanics and women. Further efforts must also be made 


123 



to ensure that the danger of exposure to toxic substances in 
many industries is reduced. Despite shortcomings, the U.S. 
record in the area of employment is a good one and is in keeping 
with the commitment to protect economic rights as well as the 
other fundamental human rights set forth in the Heslinki Final 
Act. 


HOUSING 

In Principle VII of the CSCE Final Act, signatory nations 
pledge to "promote and encourage the effective exercise of... 
economi c...socia 1...and other rights and freedoms." The partici¬ 
pating states agreed that these basic human rights should be 
protected and provided "without distinction as to race, sex, 
language or religion." The opportunity to obtain adequate 
housing is generally considered to fall within the category 
of basic economic rights. The U.S. Government, in signing the 
Helsinki accord, has extended its own commitment from a domestic 
to an international level in the ultimate goal of providing 
decent housing for its citizens. 

Lack of Adequate Housing 

Among the criticisms advanced by certain CSCE states and 
domestic observers concerning U.S. housing is the charge that 
there is not enough publicly financed housing to meet the needs 
of the economically disadvantaged. Housing assistance programs 
are said to be woefully inadequate. Critics contend that those 
facilities that do exist are physically deteriorated, poorly 
and arbitrarily administered, and are hotbeds of crime. It 
is also alleged that low and moderate income homeowners find 
it difficult to obtain the funds necesary for repairs of 
privately financed housing. A third major criticism is that 
minority group members and the elderly suffer disproportionately 
from the lack of suitable housing. 

Developments in the U.S. economy since the signing of the 
Helsinki accords in 1975 have exacerbated these problems. High 
interest rates and rising home prices and rents, coupled with 
climbing operating costs for public housing units, have further 
limited the ability of families -- especially lower income 
families -- to purchase homes or to find affordable and adequate 
housing. The housing problem has worsened due to the displace¬ 
ment of low and mode rate-income families by urban renewal 
projects, inner-city restorations and renovations and large- 
scale condominimum conversions. 

While the Federal Government has been committed to meeting 
the housing needs of low-income households for over 40 years, 
numerous government agencies have developed a broad range of 
new mechanisms to provide housing assistance since the signing 
of the Final Act. In an effort to resolve some of the problems 


124 




mentioned above, omnibus legislation was enacted in 1976 that 
reflected the changing emphasis in the housing situation. Since 
then, new initiatives and program modifications have continued. 

Even though there was a decline in U.S. housing production 
from 1974 to 1975, the Department of Housing and Urban Develop¬ 
ment (HUD) reports that there has been a general improvement 
in the housing situation in the United States. According to 
HUD, the number of homeowners in the U.S. has increased over 
the years to almost 65 percent of all households in 1977. 
Record-breaking sales of new single family housing and record 
sales for existing single family housing after 1977 show that 
the number and proportion of homeowners is still on the rise. 

In addition to this increase in homeownership, HUD maintains 
that housing quality in the U.S. is improving. Housing units, 
for example, have become less crowded and more modern. In 1970, 
1.3 million units were considered crowded, with more than one 
and one-half persons per room. This number was reduced to .7 
million in 1977. In 1970, 5.5 percent of all American house¬ 
holds did not have complete plumbing facilities. By 1977, 
steady progress in upgrading housing stock had reduced this 
number to 2.4 percent of all U.S. households. More recent 
figures indicate that the number of Americans living in 
inadequate housing is continuing to decline. 

Housing Programs 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is 
the major federal agency responsible for improving housing con¬ 
ditions in the country. According to the Congressional Research 
Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress, approximately 3.5 
million low and moderate-income families received some form 
of federal housing subsidy in 1978. Roughly 2.5 million 
families were assisted through HUD programs, while another one 
million families participated in programs administered by the 
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), an agency in the Department 
of Agriculture. This total does not inlude families assisted 
under programs of the Veterans Administration, the Department 
of Defense, unsubsidized programs of the Federal Housing 
Administration, or those who receive tax preferences as home- 
owners or developers of rental housing. 

Leased Housing Program 

Currently, the primary federal instrument to help low- 
income households obtain decent housing is the leased housing 
program established in 1974 as Section 8 of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937 and amended by Title II of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1974. 

TsT. Commerce Department, U.S. Bureau of Census, Housing 

Starts, June of 1978. 


125 






Under this program, an assisted household pays a certain 
percentage of its gross income for rent (depending on family 
size), and HUD pays the landlord the difference between the 
tenant's payment and the rent that the landlord has negotiated 
with HUD. The program provides assistance to households earning 
80 percent or less -- the percentage is adjusted for family 
size -- of the current median income in the metropolitan area. 

At least 30 percent of those families assisted must have "very 
low" incomes -- below 50 percent of the median. The Section 
8 program operates for existing housing, new construction, sub¬ 
stantially rehabilitated and moderately improved housing units 
and has been expanded and modified to respond to new issues. 

A number of special statutory restrictions that had curtailed 
HUD's flexibility in meeting local needs and preferences were 
greatly eliminated in 1979. 

Research based on information collected in late 1976 and 
funded by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research 
indicated a high level of satisfaction by participating land¬ 
lords, families and the local agencies administering the Section 
8 Existing Housing Program. In HUD's view, the program has 
worked well in a broad range of cities and towns, including 
localities which had never before participated in subsidized 
housing programs. HUD's research further indicates that the 
program is properly administered and that the quality of units 
leased under the program is good, despite the low program 
costs. This program has resulted in the extensive involvement 
by landlords owning or managing fewer than 10 units who 
previously had not participated in federally subsidized housing 
programs. Furthermore, approximately 50 percent of all the 
units leased were single family dwellings. These findings are 
significant in the light of census data indicating that 70 per¬ 
cent of America's housing stock is in buildings with nine or 
fewer units, structures of a size which have generally not been 
represented in previous HUD programs. 

In recent years, the government has emphasized the Section 
8 program, in all of its forms. The program allows families 
greater choice as to where they live and allows a broad disper¬ 
sal of subsidized housing, so that there are fewer dense concen¬ 
trations of low-income dwellings in a particular area. And 
because the burden of building and maintaining this housing 
falls on the private sector, the government's per household 
cost is less, thereby freeing funds for assisting additional 
househoIds. 


Conventional Public Housing Program 

In HUD's conventional public housing program, local public 
housing agencies build, own and operate low-rent public housing 
projects. HUD helps to finance the construction of the project 


126 


and provides financial assistance to cover operating costs as 
well. Projects are designed for low-income families and 
individuals. Although income limits to qualify for the program 
vary by area and are adjusted for family size, the maximum rents 
charged cannot be more than 25 percent of the tenant's adjusted 
income. Besides families, the elderly, handicapped or displaced 
single persons are potentially eligible. In 1976, eligibility 
requirements were liberalized somewhat to permit single persons 
to occupy up to 10 percent of a public housing project. 

According to HUD, in the years after 1976, the Department 
has been trying to improve conventional public housing as part 
of an effort to revitalize urban areas. In this regard, HUD 
has worked to foster coordination with other federal and local 
agencies involved in housing and community development programs 
and to react to the specific complaints that public housing 
facilities are physically deteriorated, poorly managed and crime 
infested. Although HUD characterizes only four percent of a 
total of 1.2 million public housing units as deteriorated or 
in poor condition, numerous programs to alleviate these problems 
have been established. 

Among these are specific programs designed to upgrade 
living conditions, improve tenant selection and assignment 
procedures, solve security problems and stimulate state and 
local government and private sector involvement in public 
housing neighborhood improvement. 

Conventional low-rent public housing has provided valuable 
aid to families at the bottom of the income scale; 68 percent 
of all families occupying public housing units in 1977 had 
annual incomes below $5,000. Low income elderly persons, in 
particular, have benefited from the program; in 1977, the 
elderly occupied 42 percent of all public housing units. In 
general, the program has increased the availability of standard 
quality housing for the poor. In 1978, over 60,000 units were 
planned for development, and HUD estimates that over 47,000 
will be approved for development in 1979. 

Mortgage Programs 

Having assumed the administration of programs previously 
run by the now-defunct Federal Housing Administration (FHA), 

HUD ensures mortgages in order to encourage home ownership and 
the construction and financing of housing. For example, one 
program provides mortgage insurance and interest subsidy for 
low and moderate-income home buyers. To enable eligible 
families to afford new homes, HUD ensures mortgages and makes 
monthly payments to lenders to reduce interest to as low as 
4 percent. Another program -- the Graduated Payment Mortgage 
Program -- has experienced remarkable growth and acceptance 
by both consumers and the mortgage industry. Graduated payment 


127 



loans are a device to allow prospective home purchasers who 
are marginal credit risks -- those with little financial wealth 
and low income -- to finance a house that they might otherwise 
not have been able to finance by, in essence, borrowing on their 
future income. Activity under the program is expected to grow 
significantly in 1979. Other programs provide mortgage 
insurance to marginal income families who are displaced by urban 
renewal or similar changes. 

Special Assistance Programs 

Special assistance programs are available to help meet 
the housing needs of Native Americans, the elderly and the 
handicapped. HUD is authorized to make direct loans to finance 
rental or cooperative housing for the elderly or handicapped. 
This program, combined with the Section 8 program, is the major 
means of providing housing assistance to the elderly. 

In 1979, the projected number of new housing units for 
elderly or handicapped persons was increased to 21,000 units. 

In addition, 5 0 million dollars was designated for non-elderly 
handicapped housing. 

HUD also administers programs specifically intended to 
aid Native Americans. In order to strengthen these services, 
a separate Office of Indian Housing was created and a Special 
Assistant was appointed to coordinate all programs that affect 
Indians and Alaska Natives. On December 1, 1978, HUD submitted 

the First Annual Report to Congress, called Indian and Alaska 
Native Housing and Community Development Programs. This report 
included a summary of the year's activities, a statistical 
report on the condition of Indian housing, and a suggested 
agenda for future consideration. HUD figures indicate that 
construction starts of housing for Indians increased from 3,900 
in 1977 to 4,500 in 1978. 

Miscellaneous Programs 

In a fresh approach to solving the housing problem, HUD 
inaugurated two major programs for administering grants to local 
governments to finance a wide range of community and neighbor¬ 
hood development activities that were previously conducted under 
the urban renewal and model cities programs. 

In 1974, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) pro¬ 
gram was established. The program assures that cities with 
populations over 50,000 and urban counties are entitled to 
receive HUD assistance provided certain requirements are met 
and HUD approves the community development plan submitted by 
local officials. The primary objective of the CDBG program 
is the "development of viable urban communities by providing 
decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding 


128 




economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and 
moderate income." Then -HUD Secretary Patricia Harris 
reaffirmed these objectives in an April of 1977 letter to all 
recipients. In 1977, 1,343 metropolitan areas and urban 

counties received 2.8 billion dollars in block grant funds. 

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 made 
changes in the Community Development Grant program which 
reflected the intent of Congress and HUD's new directions 
in administering the program. The 1977 Act refined the program 
significantly through new regulations, addingstudy of small 
cities and providingfor technical assistance. 

The Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) program was 
created in 1977 to assist distressed cities and urban counties 
characterized by declining populations, older housing stock, 
high unemployment and poverty. Most of the funds are targeted 
to metropolitan areas, but at least 25 percent of the funds go 
to cities under 50,000 population. 

According to HUD, action grants add a new dimension to 
efforts to rejuvenate severely distressed cities by making 
assistance available for revitalizing economies and reclaiming 
of neighborhoods. A total of 400 million dollars annually, 
for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980, has been budgeted for the 

program. 

HUD is investigating other methods of coping with the 
unique types of housing problems that have developed recently. 

In the spring of 1979, HUD issued the first of a two-part report 
on the nature of displacement in housing.- The report synthe¬ 
sized available information and statistics on the number of 
poor home owners who are displaced by inner city restoration 
and urban renewal projects. However, it was criticized for its 
conclusion that displacement is the reason for only a small per¬ 
centage of household moves. HUD plans to publish recommenda¬ 
tions regarding a national policy on displacement in the future. 

Moreover, HUD is conducting research on the high cost of 
renting and owning housing. A newly created Task Force on 
Housing Costs has advanced 150 r ecormnenda t i on s to help reduce 
housing costs. HUD is now implementing those over which it 
has authority. 

Housing Programs of Other Federal Agencies 

While HUD is the chief federal agency furnishing housing 
assistance to low and moderate-income households, several other 
government agencies direct programs that supplement these 
housing services. 

TT. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. 


129 




Farmers Home Administration 


The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), an agency of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, is fundamentally a farm credit 
organization which also extends credit for rural and community 
development. In 1 977, housing assistance programs accented 
for almost half of all FmHA expenditures for the year. Of 
these, the Homeownership Program dispenses loans to low and 
mode rate-income rural residents who would otherwise not be able 
to purchase, build, repair or rehabilitate a single family 
dwelling. Although the program has assisted approximately one 
million rural families since its inception, only a small 
percentage of very low income families have participated in 
the program. 

Another major housing assistance effort is the FmHA's rural 
renting program. The FmHA makes loans available to construct 
or repair rural multi-family rental housing for low and 
moderate-income households and the elderly. Again, even though 
the program serves a large number of households, critics say the 
housing erected is often too costly for the poorest families. 

In an attempt to remedy this weakness, the FmHA is now 
making loans available to certain low-income, rural residents 
who cannot afford to participate in the present homeownership 
program. Moreover, the FmHA has begun a new strategy of 
acquainting needy individuals with the programs available to 
them and counseling them during the application process. 

The FmHA has studies underway to identify and resolve other 
problem areas in rural housing. The FmHA plans to complete 
a study in October of 1979 that will recommend changes in 
federal and state procedures in order to halt the rapid decline 
in black ownership of farm land. Other studies planned or in 
progress involve migrant and settled farm worker housing and 
the improvement of services to the rural elderly. 

Health, Education and Welfare 

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) 
administers programs designed to improve living conditions in 
U.S. cities. For example, the Public Health Service of HEW 
subsidizes local efforts to prevent and treat lead poisoning 
in children, and a division of the Public Health Service main¬ 
tains an Urban Rat Control Program that emphasizes a block-by- 
block approach to eliminating the breeding grounds of rats. 

In an attempt to address other housing concerns, HEW's Adminis- 


20. The Civil Rights Commission, The Federal Fair Housing 
Enforcement Effort, March of 1979. 


130 





tration on Aging works with the Farmers Home Administration 
to provide group housing for elderly persons who live in 
depressed rural areas. 


.ACTION 

The Agency for Volunteer Service (ACTION), is the adminis¬ 
trative agency that coordinates all federally supported volun¬ 
teer programs, such as Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA); 
the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP); and University 
Year for Action (UYA). The VISTA program has developed a number 
of strategies for improving housing conditions among the poor. 
RSVP and UYA also devote much attention to housing as a basic 
human need. 


Community Services Administration 

In its Annual Report for 1976, the Community Services 
Administration (CSA) maintained that housing for the poor has 
been a major priority in its community action and other anti¬ 
poverty programs. CSA's housing research and demonstration 
projects are grouped under the "Rural Housing Development and 
Rehabilitation" program. 

Discrimination in Housing 

In testimony before the CSCE Commission in April of 1979 
and in the 1979 report entitled The Federal Fair Housing 
Enforcement Effort, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights asserted 
that evidence of 3Ts crimi nation against minorities in housing 
is still widespread. Repeating many of the same charges that 
private groups have voiced in the past, the Commission maintains 
that the real estate practices of "redlining" and "exclusionary 
zoning" are civil rights issues that are attracting growing 
national concern. Redlining occurs when mortgage lenders refuse 
to make loans or deliberately impose stiffer purchasing terms 
on residents of neighborhoods with a large proportion of 
minorities. In exclusionary zoning, local zoning ordinances 
do not permit the erection of high density or multi-family 
dwellings, thereby effectively excluding most low-income persons 
from the area. 

The Civil Rights Commission has concluded that the federal 
fair housing effort is inadequate; the primary federal law 
against housing discrimination is weak and sorely lacking in 
effective enforcement mechanisms. Furthermore, the Commission 
maintains, federal agencies have not fulfilled their legal 
responsibiity to ensure equal housing opportunity. Finally, 
according to the Civil Rights Commission, the Federal Govern¬ 
ment's expenditures to enforce housing laws are not sufficient 
to redress the problem. 


131 





Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, often called "The 
Fair Housing Act," prohibits discrimination based on race, 
color, religion, sex and national origin in the sale or rental 
of most housing. It is the principal federal statute mandating 
fair housing. Another major fair housing legislative act is 
the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which was amended in 
1976 to bar discrimination in credit transactions. 

Fair Housing Programs 

HUD is responsible for overall administration of Title 
VIII and is charged with investigating complaints of discrimina¬ 
tion under that title. HUD's statutory lack of enforcement 
power -- it has no "cease and desist" authority to halt sales 
or rentals pending the resolution of a discrimination complaint 
and it cannot secure injunctive relief -- is often cited as 
the chief obstacle to adequate protection of equal housing 
rights as envisioned in Title VIII. 

Former HUD Secretary Patricia Harris, in March of 1979, 
responded in detail to these charges. Acknowledging that the 
Civil Rights Commission report "to a major degree reflects the 
state of HUD's civil rights program as of January of 1977," 
Secretary Harris added that the report does not incorporate 
progress that has occurred since the introduction of HUD's com¬ 
prehensive strategy to strengthen Title VIII enforcement. 

The focal point of this strategy is the amendment of Title 
VIII to correct deficiencies that impede HUD's ability to aid 
discrimination victims. HUD has worked closely with Congress to 
develop the necessary remedial legislation. The Fair Housin g 
Amendments Act is presently before the House and Senate Judici¬ 
ary Committees. Another step recently taken is the total reor¬ 
ganization of the leadership and structure of HUD's Fair Housing 
f unc tion. 

Other components of the comprehensive strategy include: 

(1) A new, rapid response complaint system; 

(2) New regulations clarifying what acts are discriminatory 
under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968; 

(3) Radically improved processing of complaints referred 
to state and local fair housing agencies; 

(4) Investigation of the patterns and practices of large- 
scale discrimination; and 

(3) The institution of cooperative arrangements with the 
federal financial regulatory bodies in the investigation of 
discrimination complaints. 


132 




As a means of examining the extent and kinds of discrimina¬ 
tion and suggesting and testing methods of countering those 
problems which do exist, HUD's Office of Policy Development 
and Research has undertaken several projects. These include 
a study of race and sex discrimination by mortgage lenders; 
an evaluation of Title VIII; a study on redlining; an assessment 
of the current practices of the real estate community with an 
eye toward affirmative marketing; and a series of workshops 
dealing with women and mortgage credit. In addition, a project 
aimed at improving the administration of state and local 
agencies in combating discrimination is presently underway. 

HUD maintains that the continued expansion of its civil 
rights compliance program should significantly reduce the number 
of persons who may be subject to discrimination in HUD-assisted 
programs. For example, administrative hearings involving 
alleged non-complying recipients have increased substantially 
since 1975. Between 1977 and 1978 alone, HUD increased the 
number of cases prepared for hearing from five to 13. Between 
1977 and 1978, compliance reviews increased from 219 to 259. 
Complaints investigated increased from 14 to 32 during that 
period. 

In his testimony before the CSCE Conrmission, Deputy Assis¬ 
tant Attorney General John Huerta reaffirmed the Justice Depart¬ 
ment's commitment to assuring housing choices for all citizens. 
According to Huerta, housing cases have involved a wide variety 
of defendants ranging from small trailer parks to large real 
estate firms, apartment management companies and municipal 
governments. Huerta said that, "for the most part, the Civil 
Rights Division in the Justice Department has been highly 
successful in securing the implementation of comprehensive 
affirmative action programs to guarantee the housing rights 
of minority groups." A number of consent decrees stemming from 
these cases have resulted in monetary awards to victims of 
discrimination. 

Since 1968, the Justice Department has brought 350 actions 
under its power to sue when it discovers broad "patterns and 
practices" of housing discrimination and a strong body of legal 
precedent against housing discrimination has been established 
in U.S. courts. 

The Civil Rights Division received its equal lending 
responsibilities in 1976 under the Equal Credit Opportunity 
Act. Huerta reported that in th i s brief time, the Division has 
already brought to court a number of significant cases in this 


133 


area and has participated as amicus curiae in one case in which 
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was attacked as unconstitution¬ 
ally vague. 

The four federal financial regulatory bodies -- Federal 
Home Loan Board, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation and the Comptroller of the Currency -- 
have strengthened their enforcement of equal credit opportunity 
in housing by establishing fair housing divisions and clarifying 
rules about fair housing for the lenders they regulate. Never¬ 
theless, as of May of 1978, none of the agencies had initiated 
formal action against possible violators. 

The Civil Rights Commission has proposed that certain 
improvements be made in the federal enforcement of fair housing 
laws. Besides the amendment of Title VIII -- a change HUD is 
already actively pursuing -- the Commission recommends internal 
reorganization to strengthen a separate Equal Housing Adminis¬ 
tration within HUD and an increase in funding for federal fair 
housing enforcement programs. The recommendations are well 
advised. It is essential that HUD continues to execute the 
changes that have been proposed and that all federal agencies 
concerned bolster their efforts to end discrimination in 
housing. Government housing agencies recognize the failings 
in their enforcement strategies and have attempted to rectify 
the problems. But there is still room to improve and invigorate 
specific programs along the lines that the Civil Rights Commis¬ 
sion has suggested. Where such programs are hampered by lack 
of resources, additional funds should be made available if 
fiscally possible. 

Cone 1 usion 


The U.S. Government's numerous and varied on-going housing 
programs indicate a firm, abating commitment to comply with 
the Helsinki Final Act's provisions on economic and social 
rights. There has been a resolute effort to address new issues 
that have surfaced in the housing field and accordingly to 
update, modernize and expand projects and programs. 

Government statistics confirm overall trends of improvement 
in the quantity and quality of housing in the U.S. In order 
to sustain these achievements and eventually realize full com¬ 
pliance with the CSCE Final Act, more direct action -- beyond 
studies and task forces -- is needed to resolve recent housing 
problems. The review of existing programs must continue as 
well. Longstanding weaknesses in these nrograms can only be 
corrected through reevaluation and then revision of prevailing 
po1icies. 


134 




WOMEN'S RIGHTS 


In Principle VII of the Final Act, the CSCE states 
committed themselves to guaranteeing women's rights commensurate 
with those enjoyed by men. Principle VII states that human 
rights and fundamental freedoms -- including civil, political, 
economic and social rights -- should be accorded to all "without 
distinction as to...sex." 

How well the United States has fulfilled its obligations 
in this sphere has been the subject of considerable debate in 
this country in recent years. The women's movement, an 
increasingly vocal and we 11-organized political force, has 
succeeded in drawing attention to what adherents purport is 
the unjust, unequal status of women in the U.S. In the words 
of Phyllis Segal of the National Organization for Women (NOW), 
"According to the Federal Government's own reports, it is clear 
that (domestic, civil and economic rights) still have not been 
extended fully to women, and that sex-based discrimination 
continues to be a problem of major proportions." 

Critics such as Segal detect the presence of unequal treat¬ 
ment on the basis of sex in many areas of the American politi¬ 
cal, economic and social system. In the political realm, they 
note that too few women hold political offices. This, they 
contend, is a major reason why the required number of state 
legislatures have failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment 
(ERA), in what Segal calls the "most insidious example of this 
country's non-compliance with its international human rights 
corrm i tmen t s. " Failure to ratify the ERA has been scored by 
critics from other CSCE countries as well. Valentin Zorin, 
a political commentator for Radio Moscow notes: "The United 
States is one of the few countries in the world whose Constitu¬ 
tion fails to give women the same rights as men." 

While the U.S. record in according women equal legal and 
political rights has been subjected to some scrutiny, it is 
in the area of economic and social rights where critics 
uniformly see the most pervasive inequities. A wealth of 
statistical anaylses buttress this view: "Women make up 63 
percent of the 16 million living below the poverty level." 

"The national unemployment rate for women is 7 percent as 
compared to 5 percent for men." "For the past 20 years the 
wage gap between women and men has remained unchanged, with 
women averaging about 60 cents an hour for every dollar earned 
by men." 


135 



Critics charge that women face other economic hardships 
as well. They note that women workers are disadvantaged under 
the U.S. Social Security System which is designed in such a 
way that dependent non-working women in some cases qualify for 
higher benefits than their working counterparts -- those who 
have made actual monetary contributions to the system. 

In discussing these and other aspects of women's 
problems, critics make one final charge. According to represen¬ 
tatives of the Washington Helsinki Watch Committee, "What is 
most significant about many of these deficiencies is that they 
are directly tied to practices of discrimination that are pro¬ 
hibited by laws that are not being adequately enforced by the 
Federal Government." They charge that, where steps have been 
taken to rectify various inequalities, the U.S. Government has 
been remiss in enforcing them. These same critics point to 
the non-enfor cement of the 1972 Education Amendments to the 
Civil Rights Act as a prime example of this type of governmental 
non-action. 

The various criticisms leveled at U.S. performance in 
providing equal rights to women and men raise a number of ques¬ 
tions about U.S. compliance with the CSCE Final Act. First, 
to what extent do women in the United States experience discrim¬ 
ination as a result of their sex? Second, is the Federal 
Government effectively pursuing policies designed to bring U.S. 
performance into line with our Final Act commitments? Finally, 
what are the prospects for improving U.S. compliance with this 
particular Helsinki commitment? 

Changing Status of U.S. Women 

Dramatic changes have occurred in recent years in the roles 
and responsibilities of women in American society. From the 
traditional stereotype of homemaker, wife and mother, the 
American woman has evolved increasingly into businesswoman and 
provider. As a result of increased life expectancy, a higher 
divorce rate and smaller families, female participation in the 
labor force has risen rapidly and will likely continue to do 
so. For example, 30 years ago, the Department of Labor reports, 
35 percent of adult women worked outside the home. Today, 56 
percent of the adult female population is thus employed. In 
the next 10 years the number is expected to rise to 67 percent. 
As a result, two-thirds of all women between the ages of 20 
and 64 will be in the labor force at any one time and it is 
estimated that 90 percent of today's American women will be 
in the work force at some point in their lives. 

Most women work because of economic need. Two-thirds of 
women in the labor force in 1977 were single, divorced, 
separated, widowed or married to husbands who earned less than 
10 thousand dollars a year. Twenty-five percent of the house- 


136 



holds in the United States are headed by women. The number 
of married women (with husbands present) who are active in the 
labor force has increased five-fold since 1940. 

From this, it is clear that the American social fabric 
has undergone a radical change in the last 40 years. No longer 
is the family of four with male breadwinner and female homemaker 
the norm. At the same time, some of our laws and social 
programs, but particularly society's attitudes, have failed 
to keep pace with this change. 

Political Rights 

In the political sphere, for example, women hold fewer than 
10 percent of all elective offices in the United States, 
although they comprise more than half of the total population 
(51.3 percent). In Congress, the ratio of men to women is 30 
to one. Out of 435 members of the House of Representatives 
in 1979, women hold 16 seats -- the same number as 40 years 
ago. Of the 50 Senators, one one is a woman. 

These figures give some indication of the degree of female 
political participation at the national level. However, focus¬ 
ing exclusively on this level of political representation can 
be somewhat misleading because women only recently have become 
an effective political force in the U.S. They have, in many 
instances, not had sufficient lead time to build a base from 
which to enter national office. On the state level, however, 
female politicians are making greater inroads. There are more 
than twice as many women holding seats in state legislatures 
in 1979 as there were in 1969. Twenty-five percent of this 
increase has occurred since the 1975 signing of the Helsinki 
accords, with the result that women now hold 10.2 percent of 
all available state legislative seats. Women are becoming 
successful competitors for other statewide offices as well. 

There are currently two women governors and six female lieu¬ 
tenant governors, an increase of four in the last election. 

At the local level, the number of women mayors has increased 
by 25 percent since 1975. 

Much of the recent success women have achieved in the 
political arena has resulted from their own efforts, hard work 
and determination. On the other hand, the commitment to 
integrate women more completely into the political process is 
recognized, and is being acted on by the U.S. Government, and 
political party organizations. President Carter has appointed 
more women to office than any other president in history. Of 
the five women cabinet secretaries in U.S. history, two -- 
former Commerce Secretary Juanita Kreps and former Housing and 




137 




Urban Development, now Health, Education and Welfare Secretary 
Patricia Harris -- were appointed by President Carter in 1977. 
Carter is also making an effort to bring more women into the 
Federal Judiciary. 

The effect of presidential action in ensuring women an 
equal place in U.S. political life is limited, however. The 
real burden for stimulating increased female political partici¬ 
pation lies instead with the respective political parties. 
Fortunately, positive steps are being taken in these sectors 
as well. In 1976, for example, the Democratic Party enacted 
a rule that one-half of the delegates to its 1980 national con¬ 
vention must be women, thus ensuring that women will have a 
more forceful voice in formulating party policy. During the 
1978 elections, the Republican Party sponsored a campaign train¬ 
ing program for state level candidates, many of whom were seek¬ 
ing office for the first time. Since women are a large per¬ 
centage of those entering politics at this level, the Republican 
program proved to be a real boost for women candidates. Sixty- 
two new women representatives were elected to State Legislatures 
from the Republican Party in 1978, as compared to only two from 
the Democratic Party. 

These figures and policies serve to indicate that, while 
women may not have yet attained full political representation 
in the U.S., the trend is clearly in that direction and is being 
actively encouraged by government at all levels. Particularly 
since 1975, when the Helsinki Final Act was signed, women have 
been increasingly frequent actors on the political stage, 
appearing in far greater numbers as state legislators, mayors 
and state-cabinet level officials. In fact, the National 
Women's Political Caucus has made the optimistic observation 
that the 1978 elections created a pool of women office holders 
"to draw on for future congressional, vice-presidentia 1 and 
presidential candidates." 

Civil Rights 


American women enjoyed equal basic civil rights such as 
the right to vote and the right to participate in court proceed¬ 
ings long before the Helsinki Final Act was signed. At the 
same time, however, a number of laws created ostensibly to 
protect women from financial and other burdens, served merely 
to accord them secondary legal status in areas such as marital 
property rights and taxation. 

Many such laws and practices were changed before the Final 
Act was signed. Since then, more have been changed; and today, 
most legal inequalities have been successfully eradicated. 

The few that remain appear to be on their way out. 


138 



Critics of U.S. compliance with equal rights standards 
often cite a U.S. Civil Rights Corrmission finding that more 
than 800 sections of the U.S. Legal Code discriminate against 
women. A perusal of the 800 sections the Commission identified 
in a 1979 report as requiring change suggests, however, that 
most are suspect on the basis of their semantic overtones, not 
because they reflect discriminatory practices per se. For 
example, one of the most frequent recommendations the report 
makes is to replace sex-related words such as mother and father, 
husband and wife, with their sex-neutral counterparts -- 
parents, spouse, etc. -- even in instances where no substantive 
difference in legal treatment is implied. Another typical 
Commission suggestion advises that the word man-made be replaced 
by the word artificial. Such words, however, reveal more about 
traditional English language usage than about the status of 
equal rights in the United States. On the other hand, in those 
few instances where the Commission has identified sections which 
unfairly differentiate between men and women, changes are 
clearly in order. 

Unfortunately, a major national effort which would 
stimulate such changes has not yet succeeded. In fact, the 
failure of state legislatures to approve ratification of the 
F.qual Rights Anendment (ERA) has been cited by both domestic 
and foreign critics as one of the worst examples of U.S. non- 
compliance with the Helsinki accords. 

This charge would be indisputable were ERA the only vehicle 
for ensuring that women are accorded equal rights under the 
law. For example, some ERA opponents have argued that existing 
Constitutional provisions, as well as individual legal reforms, 
will ensure that women’s rights are adequately protected. 
Conversely, proponents argue that without ERA, existing legal 
inequalities would have to be redressed on a piecemeal basis 
and without a clear mandate or single coherent theory of what 
constitutes equal treatment. Necessary changes would be made 
only sporadically and then inconsistently. In addition, they 
question why there should be such strong opposition to stating 
such an obvious truth -- that women should have equal rights. 

The President and Congress of the United States remain 
committed to the eventual inclusion of the Equal Rights Amend¬ 
ment in the Constitution. President Carter has lent his strong 
personal support to the pro-ERA campaign and urged state legis¬ 
lators to vote in favor of the amendment. Congress last year 
saved the ERA from defeat by extending the deadline for its 
ratification from March of 1979 to June of 1982. Thus, 


139 



Thus, Federal Government support for the campaign to ensure 
women equal treatment under U.S. law has been consistent with 
the Helsinki accords. 

Economic Rights 


Emp 1 oymen t 

While the U.S. has made progress in according women equal 
civil and political rights, problems still continue to plague 
government efforts to equalize women's participation in the 
labor force. For example, Alexis Herman, former director of 
the Labor Department's Women's Bureau (a government body 
concerned solely with improving the position of women in the 
labor force), recently gave this overview of women workers: 

"Women's labor force participation has 
increased dramatically in the past decade, 
accounting for nearly 60 percent of the increase 
in the civilian labor force. In 1977, about 
40 million women workers made up 41 percent of 
the nation's work force. Nearly half of all 
women 16 years of age and over, and 57 percent 
of all women between 18 and 64, were working 
for salary or wages last year. 

"Most women work in jobs that are 
traditional for women to hold, generally related 
to homemaking and child care or other supportive 
roles. The five occupations with the greatest 
number of women workers are: secretary, sales 
clerk, bookkeeper, elementary school teacher 
and waitress. About 80 percent of all women 
workers are clustered in just 20 of 441 job 
titles included in the Census Occupational 
Classification System. 

"Sex role stereotyping of jobs contributes 
significantly to the earning gap between men 
and women, because jobs in which women 
predominate pay lower wages than those in which 
men predominate. The gap between men's and 
women's earnings has increased in the last 20 
years. In 1957, women earned 64 percent of what 
men earned; by 1971 they earned only 5 9 percent 
of men's earnings. Comparing earnings in dollar 
amounts, white women earned 38,285 and minority 
women earned $7,825 in 1976, compared with 
$14,071 earned by white men and $10,496 earned 
by minority men (median wage of salary incomes 
for full-time, year-round workers)." 


140 



The U.S. Government has sought to address these problems 
through corrective legislation and executive action. The Equal 
Pay Act of 1963, for example, prohibits pay discrimination on 
the basis of sex. Men and women performing work in the same 
establishment under similar conditions must receive the same 
pay if their jobs require equal skill, effort and responsi¬ 
bility. The Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division, which 
enforces the Act, has officially interpreted its provisions 
to apply to "wages," i.e. all remuneration for employment. The 
Act, therefore, prohibits discrimination in all employment- 
related payments, including overtime, uniforms, travel and other 
fringe benefits. It outlaws sex-based distinctions in retire¬ 
ment benef'ts or in required employee contributions toward equal 
retirement benefits. The Supreme Court has upheld the position 
that jobs of men and women need be only "substantially equal" 

-- not identical -- for purposes of comparison under the law. 

In a related effort, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act 
of 1972 amended the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination 
based on sex in hiring or firing; wages; fringe benefits; eligi¬ 
bility for training programs or promotion; or any other terms, 
conditions, or privileges of employment. The Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which enforces the Act with 
respect to non-federal employees, has issued "Guidelines on 
Discrimination Because of Sex." These guidelines bar, among 
other discriminatory acts, hiring based on stereotyped charac¬ 
terization of the sexes, classification or labeling of "men's 
jobs" and "women's jobs," and advertising under male or female 
headings. 

Finally, Executive Order 11246 requires federal contractors 
to pledge not to discriminate against any employee or applicant 
for employment because of sex, race, color, religion or national 
origin. The contractor must further promise to take affirmative 
action to ensure non-discriminatory treatment. When a firm 
is found to be in violation of these provisions, the Secretary 
of Labor may issue an Order of Debarment, thereby denying the 
company any further federal contracts. 

In a recent case of this type, Secretary of Labor Ray 
Marshall, on dune 28, 1979, issued an order which would make 

the Uniroyal Company ineligible for government business. If 
upheld in the courts (Uniroyal has appealed), this action could 
deprive the company of more than 36 million dollars in federal 
contract business. 

Responding to charges that inadequate enforcement proce¬ 
dures have in the past reduced the effectiveness of many of 
these corrective measures, the U.S. Government has recently 
acted to simplify and strengthen the mechanisms through which 
discrimination can be redressed. Sarah Weddington, the chief 
presidential advisor for women's issues, has reported that the 


141 


Carter Administration has placed special emphasis on achieving 
an enforcement structure that will provide faster and more 
efficient service to complainants. Testifying before the Commis¬ 
sion, she noted that the President has requested increased 
funding of 37 million dollars for overall civil rights enforce¬ 
ment in his budget for Fiscal Year 1980. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) -- the 
federal agency with primary responsibility for enforcement -- 
has also been given increased funding and staff allotments. 

Since 1975, EEOC reorganization has removed several layers of 
bureaucracy which separated complainants at local levels from 
the lawyers and professionals who press their cases. Finally, 
efforts are underway to concentrate enforcement responsibilities 
heretofore spread among several government agencies in the 
EEOC. In a related effort, in July of 1978, the EEOC was given 
the task of coordinating all of the activities of federal 
agencies as they pertain to equal employment opportunity. 

In addition to the EEOC, the Department of Labor's Office 
of Federal Contract Compliance has been reorganized and granted 
increased authority, and HEW's Office of Civil Rights used 
increased funding in 1978 and 1979 to fill 898 new positions 
to reduce its backlog of cases. 

The fact that these measures have not yet provided women 
full equality in the labor force illustrates the relative 
complexity of the employment issue: unequal treatment is a 
problem that cannot be corrected by legislative edict alone. 

A number of subjective factors combine to perpetuate the exist¬ 
ing situation. Not only do employers retain outmoded notions 
of women's unsuitability for certain types of physical labor 
and management positions, but women themselves have often been 
socially conditioned not to pursue careers traditionally 
reserved for men. In addition, women are more likely to leave 
the labor force for a number of years in order to have children 
and raise families. Many have therefore come to think of them¬ 
selves as unsuited for long-term careers outside the home and 
have failed to prepare themselves for such eventualities. 

Thus the need not only for corrective legislation, but 
also for government-sponsored affirmative action programs 
becomes apparent. Such programs are needed particularly to close 
the wage gap and to eliminate occupational segregation. These 
problems have been the target of a number of U.S. Government 
initiatives. 

For example, the EEOC has charged hundreds of companies 
with bias against women, an action which has encouraged many 
to negotiate out-of-court settlements in the form of affirmative 
action programs. The U.S. Justice Department has frequently 
intervened on behalf of women who have charged sex discrimina- 


142 


t i on. For example, the Justice Department recently asked that 
the Philadelphia Police Department be ordered to institute 
hiring policies which would result in a 40 percent female 
force. Similarly, the Department of Labor not long ago nego¬ 
tiated a two million dollar affirmative action plan with Chase 
Manhattan Bank. 

The government's role is not limited to that of enforcer. 
The Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor has developed 
model affirmative action programs for use by employers who 
cannot afford to develop their own and has funded a number of 
projects to provide job skills and vocational counseling to 
displaced homemakers, rural, low-income and young women. 

Rather than run the risk of government action, many firms 
have acted voluntarily to set up programs designed to improve 
women's advancement and training opportunities. The results 
have been generally positive. In a recent study of 165 U.S. 
firms' efforts to upgrade women's job opportunities, the 
Conference Board reported that : "The overwhelming majority 
of surveyed firms say their efforts to improve women's job 
opportunities have yielded benefits that go far beyond mere 
compliance with the law. The primary benefit, they say, is 
that they are beginning to utilize all their human resources 
more effectively." 

A number of other government programs -- among them, ones 
targeted at female entrepeneurial activities, education and 
provision of day-care facilities -- have sought to promote the 
integration of women into the national labor force. 

Most recently, President Carter acted to create the Inter¬ 
agency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise, a body that 
will promote, coordinate and monitor federal efforts on behalf 
of women-owned businesses. As part of this effort, the Small 
Business Administration will extend 50 million dollars in direct 
loans to women-owned businesses in 1980. In addition, the 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy has agreed to increase 
to at least 150 million dollars from 63 million dollars the 
amount of federal prime contracts awarded to women-owned 
concerns. These efforts will be directed toward female entre- 
peneurs who may be disadvantaged due to a lack of adequate 
capital, a lack of marketing opportunities or an absence of 
management and technical skills, all of which may have resulted 
from the existence of past discriminatory practices. 

In the area of equal education opportunity, a number of 
steps have been taken to ensure that women have access to the 
type of education and training that will prepare them for a 
wider range of careers. Congress recently passed Title IX 
of the 1972 Education Amendments, a program administered by 
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and designed 


143 


to eliminate traditionally sex-stereotyped access to educational 
programs. Unfortunately, better enforcement will be required 
before this program can realize its full potential. 

Another new law affecting educational opportunities for 
women is the Women's Educational Equity Act. Under WEEA, HEW 
awards grants and contracts for developing model tools and 
strategies for providing young women with less stereotyped 
educations. Between 1976 and 1978, WEEA made possible 237 
grants and contracts totalling 21,625,000 dollars. In addition, 
the Administration has requested a 1980 funding level of 10 
million dollars, an amount that would be the largest 
appropriation ever made for the Act. 

Women who combine family and career are often severely 
limited in their job options. Those who must care for children 
are often unable to work a nine-to-five schedule and, as a 
result, are forced to accept low-paying, dead-end employment. 

Day care facilities are often too expensive to provide a viable 
solution to the working mother's plight. These are problems 
which a number of government programs have sought to solve. 
Testifying before the Commission on Security and Cooperation 
in Europe, President Carter's women's advisor, Sarah Weddington, 
offered this description of such programs: 

"The Part-time Employment Act establishes 
uniform federal policy on part-time employment 
and also requires agencies to establish part-time 
career and employment programs. Part-time 
employment is especially helpful to women with 
young families. It is important to ensure not 
only that these women have the flexibility to 
allow them to carry out their family responsi¬ 
bilities, but also that they receive credit for 
their on-the-job accomplishments and are provided 
good career development opportunities. 

"Similarly, the Flexible Schedule for 
Federal Employees Act authorizes the Civil 
Service Commission to conduct a three-year 
experiment in the use of flexible and 
compressed-work schedules. 

"We have made some progress towards helping 
working parents provide day-care assistance 
through a variety of programs. The Title II 
Program offers child-care services to low and 
mi dd1e-income families. The Work Incentive 
Program provides support services for welfare 
mothers receiving Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children (AFDC) benefits who need child care 
in order to work. In addition, AFDC recipients 


144 


can presently deduct child-care expenses from 
income for purposes of determining welfare benef¬ 
its. Child-care services are offered by many 
states through their federally-assisted child 
welfare programs. Finally, many working parents 
may claim a tax credit for child-care expenses 
when filing their federal income tax forms." 

The available evidence seems to indicate that many of the 
programs designed to improve women's employment situation are 
beginning to yield their first results. For example, in 1974, 
women numbered only 1,000 of 100,000 coal miners in the U.S.; 
today, there are 5,000, an increase of 500 percent in five 
years. There are now female pilots, air controllers, fire¬ 
fighters and construction workers, all occupations which until 
recently had been closed to women. Women in 'white-collar' 
jobs seem to have particularly benefited from the wave of new 
awareness sweeping industry and management. The management- 
consultant firm of Heidrick & Struggles, Inc. reports, for 
example, that the number of women corporate officers in the 
1,300 largest U.S. firms rose 28 percent in just one year, 
1977-1978. In addition, the number of women earning $25,000 
a year or more has increased 76 percent since 1970. 

Problems facing women in the work force are complex but 
government programs designed to equalize economic opportunities 
for women are in effect. While some problems remain to be 
addressed and, in some cases, better enforcement of existing 
legislative initiatives is in order, the U.S. Government 
commitment to meeting the equal rights standards of the Helsinki 
Final Act is clear. The trend is toward the resolution of out¬ 
standing problems and toward better compliance with the United 
States' CSCE commitments. 

Socia 1 Rights 


Socia 1 Security 

The present U.S. Social Security System was developed with 
the traditional family in mind -- two children, non-working 
wife. As such, it is poorly designed to meet the needs of the 
more modern family -- one in which the wife can be found in¬ 
creasingly in the labor force. It is also unresponsive to the 
needs of women in an era where more and more marriages end in 
divorce. 

Under the present system, a couple with a non-working wife 
and an income comparable to that of a two-earner couple receives 
Social Security benefits higher than those earned by the two- 
earner couple. Thus, the family where the wife does not work 
receives a larger return for its tax dollars than u nma r rie d 
workers or couples where both are employed. On the other hand, 


145 



women who are homemakers have no Social Security coverage in 
their own right and can find themselves ineligible for any 
benefits should their marriages end in divorce. 

These examples point to the growing need for reform of the 
Social Security System as it now stands. A few improvements have 
recently been effected, including the reduction from 20 to 10 
the number of years which divorced women must have been married 
to qualify for dependent's benefits. In another improvement, 
a provision which discouraged widows from remarrying by revoking 
their widow's benefits has been removed. 

Nevertheless, new changes are needed to make the Social 
Security System responsive to the needs of the modern family 
and working woman. Congress, recognizing this fact, requested 
HEW in 1977 to develop a number of proposals designed to make 
the system more equitable. Two alternative approaches have 
been proposed. Under one, family earnings would be pooled and 
each partner would be credited with half the total in computing 
benefits. All divorced women would be covered. Two-earner 
and one-earner families with the same incomes would receive 
the same protection. 


Under the second proposal, all current Social 
recipients would be entitled to a minimum personal 
which would then be supplemented in proportion to 
made to the system during an individual's working 
Divorced spouses would be entitled to half of the 
benefits earned during marriage. Survivors would 
benefits from deceased spouses. 


Security 
benefit, 
cont ributions 
life. 

s upp1emen ta 1 
inherit such 


Hea1th Care 


An analysis of health care issues which specifically affect 
women naturally finds a focus in a discussion of health services 
and benefits regarding reproduction. Two issues which have been 
the cause of widespread concern and controversy in recent years 
are pregnancy disability benefits and access to abortions. 


In a 1976 case, General Electric v. Gilbert, the U.S. 
Supreme Court ruled that employers may legal 1y exclude pregnancy 
benefits from company disability plans. This ruling, and a 
similar one in Geduldig v. Aiello, et al, were based on the 
Court's finding that companies with disability plans excluding 
pregnancy benefits did not disqualify prospective recipients on 
the basis of sex, but merely removed one condition, pregnancy, 
from the roster of compensable disabilities. 


This decision brought an outcry from women's and civil 
rights groups who found a certain logical inconsistency in the 
Court's non-discrimination argument. It was obvious that only 
one sex could become pregnant. To argue that exclusion of preg- 


146 




nancy coverage from disability programs affected both sexes 
equally -- as the Court's decision seemed to imply -- was 
questionable. 

In an action which served to reverse the Court's ruling, 
Congress, in 1978, passed the Pregnancy Disability Benefits Act. 
The Act amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to 
declare discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related 
medical conditions illegal in all aspects of employment, includ¬ 
ing hiring, promotion, seniority rights and fringe benefit pro¬ 
grams such as disability plans. Thus, Congress' action brought 
U.S. performance in providing equal access to health coverage 
into line with Final Act commitments to ensure equal social 
rights. 

Perhaps the women's issue which has aroused the greatest 
controversy in recent years is abortion. The right to abortions 
was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, but 

has since come under considerable attack on religious and moral 
grounds. Responding to mounting pressure from "Right to Life" 
groups, Congress acted recently to limit the ease with which 
abortions can be obtained by imposing bans on the use of Medi¬ 
caid funds for such puposes. 

Critics of these Congressional actions have charged that 
they deny poor, rural and young women a right easily enjoyed 
by others -- the right of privacy in matters of reproduction. 
Conversely, their opponents have raised the issue of the rights 
of the unborn, asserting that everyone, including unborn babies, 
has a right to life. 

Whether or not women should be granted the right to 
terminate unwanted pregnancies is admittedly a serious moral 
and ethical question. The Final Act, however, states only that 
the human rights of all without distinction as to sex should 
be respected. It does not address the complex issues 
surrounding the problem of abortion. 

Cone 1 usion 


Full equality for women -- particularly for women in the 
labor force -- remains a goal towards which the United States 
Government, American society and, in fact, most modern societies 
in the world must continue to strive. The attainment of full 
equality for women requires that attitudes and patterns of 
behavior developed over the course of many centuries be rever¬ 
sed . 


Nevertheless, the U.S. Government has actively pursued 
policies which have not only improved the status of women's 
rights, but which have facilitated the implementation in the 
U.S. of the provisions of the Final Act. U.S. legislation has 


147 



specifically prohibited sex discrimination and stereotyping 
in employment. The Carter Administration has improved the 
enforcement capabilities of the Equai Employment Opportunity 
Commission abd HEW's Office of Civil Rights. It has addressed 
the problems inherent in the Social Security System and adopted 
programs to facilitate loans to women business owners. Finally, 
women in the United States have been accorded civil rights equal 
to those enjoyed by men and are beginning to make inroads into 
the political establishment. 

On the other hand, further improvements are still needed 
in many government programs. The Commission believes, for 
example, that additional efforts must be made to ensure that 
women of all ages have access to the type of education and 
training that will prepare them adequately for careers outside 
the home. Of primary importance for young women is improved 
enforcement of Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments. 
Improved follow-up mechanisms, including more frequent on-site 
inspections and more specific reporting requirements, would 
be advisable. 

While recognizing that several federal programs have sought 
to make day-care facilities more widely available, the Com¬ 
mission believes that a much greater commitment of funds and 
resources will be necessary before U.S. performance in this 
sphere wi11 match that of some other CSCE states. It should, 
therefore, become a high priority of Congress and the Adminis¬ 
tration to increase the level of federal assistance to state 
and local programs in providing day-care facilities to working 
parents . 

Clearly, the U.S. record leaves room for improvement. How¬ 
ever, U.S. policies and women’s programs do represent a good 
faith effort to comply with the Final Act's equal rights provi¬ 
sions. 

AMERICAN INDIANS 21 

American Indians have much in common with other U.S. 
minority groups. However, it would be extremely misleading 
to view the rights of American Indians solely in terms of their 
status as a racially distinct minority group, while neglecting 
their tribal rights. The Indian tribes are sovereign, domestic 
dependent nations that have entered into a trust relationship 
with the U.S. Government. Their unique status as distinct 
political entities within the U.S. federal system is acknow- 


21. Unless otherwise indicated, background information in this 
section has been provided by the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Indian Affairs of the U.S. Department of the 
I nterior. 


1 48 




ledged by the U.S. Government in treaties, statutes, court 
decisions and executive orders, and recognized in the U.S. Con¬ 
stitution. This nationhood status and trust relationship has led 
American Indian tribes and organizations, and the U.S. Govern¬ 
ment to conclude that Indian rights issues fall under both 
Principle VII of the Helsinki Final Act, where the rights of 
national minorities are addressed, and under Principle VIII, 
which addresses equal rights and the self-determination of 
peoples. 

The U.S. commitment to Indian self-determination is 
articulated in the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act that became public law in early 1975. The 
policy of the U.S. Government, articulated in this law, is 
designed to put Indians, in the exercise of self-government, 
into a decision-making position with respect to their own lives. 
The United States has recognized that it has not always lived 
up to its obligations in its protection of the rights of Native 
Americans to a continuing political existence, to land and 
natural resources and to cultural distinctness. The U.S. 
Government, however, is improving its performance and attempting 
to close the gap between policy and practice. 

At the CSCE hearings in April of 1979 on U.S. domestic 
compliance with the Helsinki accords, criticism was directed 
toward U.S. treatment of Indians -- both as citizens of Indian 
nations and tribes, and as individual minority group members. 
Other criticisms have been brought to the Commission's attention 
by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has solicited 
opinions from such sources as tribal organizations and Indian 
interest law firms. In addition, the Commission has noted 
criticism from other signatory states. The allegations and 
criticisms concerning Indian rights cover a broad spectrum: 
administrative and institutional conflict of interest; coordina¬ 
tion and funding problems at the federal level; insufficient 
opportunity for effective Indian involvement in the federal 
decision-making process; inadequate protection of tribal rights 
by the Federal Government; discrimination against Indians as 
a minority; the poor socio-economic profile of Indians; pur¬ 
ported sterilization of Indian women against their wishes; 

Indian prisoners of conscience and accusations of police miscon¬ 
duct; forcible assimilation of Indians into white society and 
removal of Indian children from their home or tribal environ¬ 
ment; and insensitivity to Indian cultural needs. The remainder 
of this section of the report addresses these criticisms and 
will attempt to assess Indian rights within the context of the 
Helsinki Final Act. 


149 


The Federal Administration of Indian Policy 


The Federal Government's trust responsibilities and special 
relationship extends to Indian nations, tribes and individuals. 
The major federal departments with programs relating to Indians 
are Interior; Health, Eduction and Welfare; Agriculture; Housing 
and Urban Development; and Commerce. The Departments of Labor, 
Transportation, Treasury, State and Defense also have programs 
important to Indians. The Department of Justice handles most 
of the legal problems affecting Indian rights. Other agencies 
such as the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission have functions of consequence 
to Indians. 

The Interior Department is the agency which has the 
greatest impact on Indian affairs. Interior is explicitly 
charged with the task of protecting Indian lands and resources 
and has specific statutory responsibility for ensuring the 
continued well-being of Indian tribes and people. The Bureau 
of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the main agency within the Interior 
Department that deals with Indian affairs. 

The dual role of the BIA as an advocate of Indian interests 
and principle agent of the trustee (the United States) has given 
rise to a large measure of Indian mistrust. The BIA has been 
accused of paternalism and mismanagement in the past. The 
present BIA administration has acknowledged past problems and 
has taken steps to resolve them, recognizing that it has often 
implemented negative policies too vigorously, while positive 
policies have been carried out less vigorously. The BIA is 
now improving its management structure and system, and it is 
moving to facilitate greater coordination and cooperation with 
the other agencies on program and policy matters. 

Civil, Political and Tribal Rights 

While Indians in off-reservation areas may seek protection 
as members of a national minority under the civil rights laws, 
Indians on and near reservations are entitled to additional 
protection through specialized statutes delineating tribal 
rights. 

Indians constitute less than one-half of one percent of 
the U.S. population and are widely disbursed throughout the 
country. Hence, they are not a particularly effective political 
force. Therefore, historically Indians have depended greatly 
on their unique legal status to protect them from the erosion 
of their rights by non-Indian private interests and state and 
local government. 


150 




It is paradoxical that classic civil rights arguments on 
equal protection are often invoked by non-Indians in this 
country as a means of limiting the implementation of Indian 
rights. Some non-Indians maintain that the the accordance of 
tribal rights by the Federal Government is tantamount to racial 
discrimination against non-Indians. Actually, the U.S. 
Government entered into a trust relationship with the separate 
tribes in acknowledgement not of their racial distinctness, 
but of their political status as sovereign nations. 

Role of the Justice Department 

The Department of Justice has the responsibility to liti¬ 
gate Indian interests in the courts. Two sections of the 
Justice Department fulfill these functions: the Office of Indian 
Rights of the Civil Rights Division and the Indian Resources 
Section of the Lands Division. 

The Office of Indian Rights was established in 1974 to 
enforce all federal civil rights provisions as they apply to 
Native Americans as well as the provisions of the Indian Civil 
Rights Act of 1968. This office was created as a result of 
a study of the Civil Rights Division which found that racial 
discrimination was a significant contributing factor to the 
social and economic problems faced by American Indians. Since 
its establishment, the Office of Indian Rights has engaged in 
litigation involving voting rights cases, discrimination cases 
concerning access to state and local services, and improvement 
of conditions in detention facilities with predominantly Indian 
inmates. 

The Indian Resources Section of the Lands Division is 
responsible for Indian-re1 ated, non-civil rights litigation 
such as lands, natural resources, tribal government and treaty 
rights issues. 


Tribal Interest Law Firms 

To help defend their rights, Indians themselves have 
established tribal interest law firms, such as the Native 
Anerican Rights Fund (NARF) founded in 1970. These organiza¬ 
tions supplement the work of the Justice Department, which 
Indians assert has inadequately enforced and protected their 
rights. Furthermore, Indians assert that conflicts of interest 
arise within various departments with divergent agencies' per¬ 
spectives on Indian interests. For example, disputes over land 
and resources in Indian country sometimes bring into play the 
BIA, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service of the Interior Department. Moreover, in cases where 


151 



there are no direct conflicts of interest, Indians assert that 
political factors and the personal biases of Justice Department 
functionaries against taking the Indian side in disputes hinder 
the enforcement of Indian rights. 

Law Enforcement on Indian Reservations 

Four law enforcement agencies have jurisdiction on Indian 
reservations: the FBI investigates, and the U.S. Attorney 
prosecutes, violations of federal law that are designated to 
be Major Crimes (murder, kidnapping, rage and 11 other serious 
crimes); BIA police and tribal police are responsible for 
policing, investigating minor crimes, and maintaining law and 
order on a day-to-day basis; and, state police have authority 
in situations when both the offender and the victim are non- 
Indians. 

The degree of confidence Indians have in the criminal jus¬ 
tice system varies from reservation to reservation and from 
state to state. Indians complain that some U.S. Attorneys have 
not established effective prosecutorial guidelines for Major 
Crimes offenses, causing delays in processing cases. BIA police, 
tribal police and federal investigators often duplicate investi¬ 
gative work. On some reservations, law enforcement and court 
facilities are inadequate and tribal police and tribal judges 
are insufficiently trained. Some of the non-Indian law enforce¬ 
ment and prosecutorial personnel that operate on reservations 
are not sensitive to Indian customs and needs. 

The U.S. Government is aware that these factors tend to 
shake Indian confidence in the criminal justice system, and 
is working to increase the effectiveness of police and 
prosecutors in Indian country. Much work remains to be done, 
howeve r. 

Allegations of Police Misconduct 

Over the years, mutual resentments have built up between 
Indians and various governmental authorities. As Indian people 
have become more assertive, and sometimes militant, in demanding 
their rights, these resentments have increased. Racist state¬ 
ments and actions of some authorities have cause many Indian 
people to allege that they cannot receive fair trials and that 
certain Indian activists are now in prison not because of the 
crimes they have committed but because of their political 
ac tivism. 


152 


Domestic groups have charged -- and some CSCE signatories, 
the USSR in particular, have echoed these charges -- that law 
enforcement officials have engaged in systematic harassment, 
surveillance and other extra-legal activity against Indian 
activists. These critics further asset that leaders of the 
American Indian Movement (AIM), such as Russell Means, Dennis 
Banks and Leonard Peltier, are examples of activists who have 
ended up as political prisoners. (Further information on Means 
and certain other activists is contained in the section on 
Alleged Political Prisoners). Critics charge that police and 
prosecutors increased their alleged harassment of AIM leaders 
and other activist Indians following the wide1y-pub 1icized 1973 
armed takeover of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, by Indian 
militants. The occupation of Wounded Knee produced a 
complicated situation involving several law enforcement 
agencies, including tribal police from Pine Ridge Reservation. 
When such controversial confrontations occur, the potential 
for conflict and misunderstanding is considerably heightened. 

Judicial Decisions and Trends, 1973-1979 

Trends in the courts must be reviewed within the context 
of the three judicial systems that apply. The federal courts, 
Indian courts and state courts are distinct systems, deriving 
their powers from separate authority and retaining their own 
peculiar jurisdictions to try to punish crimes by or against 
Indians and to determine the nature and extent of Indian treaty 
and other federally reserved rights. 

The trend in the decisions of these systems is an effort 
to clarify which court system has jurisdiction over a cause 
of action under the circumstances. Particularly in this decade 
these court systems, with the federal courts in the lead, are 
defining where, when and over whom Indian tribes or states have 
jurisdiction, and which governmental system has jurisdiction 
to act with respect to Indian boundaries, Indian resources, 
tribal members and non-members, and with respect to who can 
control the exercise of tribal rights off-reservation. 

The present activity of the federal courts and their 
increasing deference to tribal courts and tribal authorities 
tend to support the view that the Indian policy of the United 
States is designed to give wide latitude to Indian tribes in 
the exercise of self-government. This appears to be particular 
ly true when the principal tribal activities are in the areas 
of controlling their citizenry on the reservation and asserting 
governmental taxing and regulatory control over Indians and 
Indian property. There seems to be a tendency by the ocurts 
to avoid strong statements of Indian self-government only where 
the property or the reservation is largely out of Indian con¬ 
trol. The courts also receive policy guidance from Congress 


153 


and from the executive branch in these areas, as they interpret 
the law and review the actions of the Congress and the Executive 
Branch to assure compliance with the U.S. Constitution. 

A telling measure of the real successes Indians have scored 
in the courts in defense of their rights was seen, oddly enough, 
in the proliferation of "backlash" bills that were put before 
the 95th Congress. By means of these bills, anti-Indian politi¬ 
cal interests hoped to weaken the solid legal basis upon which 
Indian rights cases were being successfully won in the courts. 
These lobbying groups pushed Congress to terminate the trust 
responsibility altogether, abolish the reservations, institute 
state regulation of hunting and fishing on Indian lands and deny 
due process rights of tribes pressing claims in court. This 
attempt so alarmed Indian people that many undertook an arduous 
journey, "The Longest Walk," from Ca1ifornia to Washington, D.C. 
in the summer of 1978 to voice their concern to the Congress. 

For a variety of reasons, none of the "backlash" bills 
was ever heard of or referred out of committee, expiring with 
the adjournment of the 95th Congress. However, bills of a 
similar nature are pending before the present Congress and are 
still the focus of much concern for Indian people. Should these 
bills be enacted into law, the cause of Indian rights in the 
U.S. would suffer a serious setback. 

Power of the Congress 

Federal courts have consistently ruled that Congress has 
the plenary authority to fix the terms of the U.S. Government's 
trust relationship with the Indians. Indians assert, given 
the historical precedent, that the breadth of this Congressional 
plenary power to legislate in their regard carries with it the 
potential danger that such power will be misused to deprive 
Indians of their rights, since Indians are not as strong in 
numbers as the non-Indian voting public in the states. 

It is not the existence of the power that should be the 
focus of the discussion but how and when it is exercised. More 
than one hundred measures expressly affecting American Indian 
and other Native peoples have been enacted since 1975. The 
95th Congress alone created 79 new laws pertaining to Native 
Americans. While some of these laws affect only one or a few 
tribes or individual Indians, many Congressional acts during 
the past four years represent policy statements of major 
significance affecting Native governments and people in the 
U.S. Two of these acts -- one establishing the American Indian 
Policy Rev i ew Conrmi s s i on and the other setting forth an Indian 


154 


self-determination operating policy -- were passed in the first 
days of 1975. Subsequently, the Congress passed important 
legislation addressing basic human rights and needs of Indian 
people in the areas of health, education, child welfare, 
religious freedom, economic development, land and natural 
resources and tribal recognition and restoration. Legislation 
enacted during this period follows a consistent policy line 
repudiating termi nationist and assimi 1 ationist policies of the 
1950's, removing barriers to Indian self-determination and local 
level control and enhancing the basic quality of life of Native 
American peoples. 

Balanced against this progress, the House Interior 
Committee, in January of 1979, voted to abolish its Indian 
Affairs Subcommittee, which can be credited with drafting and 
reporting legislation affecting Indian interests in recent Con¬ 
gresses. As a result, Indian legislation will now be one of 
the many contending areas of legislative responsibility of the 
full Interior Committee, increasing the likelihood that fewer 
Members of Congress will be well versed in Indian matters. 

The Select Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, estab¬ 
lished in the 95th Congress primarily to consider over 200 pro¬ 
gressive legislative recommendations made by the American Indian 
Policy Re vi ew Conrmi s s i on, will continue to function in the 96th 
Congress. These recommendations, however, remain to be con¬ 
sidered within this Committee, and theConmnittee's existence 
in the 97th Congress is uncertain. 

Socio-Economic Profile 


Federal Assistance Programs 

Under Principle VII, the U.S. has pledged to promote and 
encourage the economic and social rights of its people. Often, 
the U.S. has been called to task by Indians, Indian advocates, 
and other CSCE countries for failing to act to improve the 
socio-economic situation of Indians. 


TT. The Congress created the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission in 1975 and mandated it to conduct a "com¬ 
prehensive review of the historical and legal develop¬ 
ments underlying the Indians' unique relationship with 
the Federal Government in order to determine the nature 
and scope of necessary revisions in the formulation of 
policies and programs for the benefit of Indians." The 
Commission reported its findings and recommendations to 
Congress on May 17, 1977 and expired on June 30, 1977. 


155 




Native Americans, on the average, have the lowest per 
capita income, the highest unemployment rate, the lowest level 
of educational attainment, the shortest lives, the worst health 
and housing conditions and the highest suicide rate in the 
United States. The poverty among Indian families is nearly 
three times greater than the rate for non-Indian families, and 
Native people collectively rank at the bottom of virtually every 
social and economic statistical indicator. 

When the federal government negotiated treaties with 
various tribes, it promised them that the Indian people would 
be provided a permanent and economically viable and self- 
sustaining homeland, that the reservations would be made to 
bloom, that the Federal Government wouid assist the tribes in 
transforming their way of life. 

The U.S. has acknowledged that it has not yet lived up 
to this promise. However, over the past five years important 
steps have been taken to improve the situation of American 
Indians. 

Federal Assistance Programs 

An overall strategy is just developing to deal with the 
problem of Indian poverty, the basis of many other problems. 


Native people are citizens of both their tribes and the 
United States. As U.S. citizens they are entitled to federal 
assistance available to the general public, and, like other 
U.S. citizens, Indians may turn to the courts for redress if 
they believe they have been denied 
services. 


the courts for 
access to such 


federal 


At the level of local service delivery systems, the Federal 
Government has extended recognition to tribal governments, and 
the Congress has repeatedly included tribes per se in such pro¬ 
grams of general application as General Revenue Sharing, the 
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act and the Joint Funding 
Simplification Act. Yet, tribal eligibility for participation 
in federal domestic assistance programs to state and local 
governments is not uniform. In some instances, program eligi¬ 
bility is defined, in an apparent oversight, as intended for 
"state and state subdivisions," a formulation which seems to 
exclude tribes. In other instances, where eligibility provi¬ 
sions do not specify "state and state subdivisions" only, the 
provisions have been incorrectly interpreted by some adminis¬ 
trators to exclude tribal governments. 


156 



Congress has created a number of programs which are 
intended specifically for Indians, both as tribes and indiv¬ 
iduals. These programs generally are in fulfillment of the 
Federal Government's trust responsibility and many of them are 
derived from specific treaty obligations of the U.S. 

Tribal Recognition and Restoration Legislation 

The past policy of terminating Federa 1 -triba1 status 
was intended by the Congress to assist Indian people into the 
mainstream by severing all federal ties and ending federal 
services in one cash payment. The consequences of terminations 
have proven tragic for the Indian people and against the 
national interest. Congress repudiated this practice when it 
examined the case of the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin and 
restored their political relationship with the United States 
in 1973. Since 1975, the Congress has recognized or restored 
to recognized status six tribes, making members eligible to 
benefit from special federal programs that are designed to 
assist Indian tribes. 

Federal Acknowledgement Project 

The Federal Acknowledgement Project was undertaken because 
there may be Indian tribal groups which should but do not 
receive the benefit of the special federa 1 - Indian relationship. 
In September of 1978, the Secretary of the Interior published 
final rules setting criteria for determining whether such groups 
qualify for this special relationship with the U.S. Government. 
These criteria were developed after extensive consultation with 
Indian groups and became effective October 2, 1978. 

At the present time, there are nearly 500 governmental 
entities, including Indian tribes, pueblos, bands, rancherias, 
communities and Alaska Native villages and corporations which 
are recognized as eligible for BIA trust services. Thus far, 
more than 50 other Indian groups have petitioned the Secretary 
for acknowledgement of their status as Indian tribes. 

23 

The Role of the Indian Health Service 

The Indian Health Service (IHS) of the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare is the primary federal health 
resource for approximately 760,000 Indians and Alaska Native 
people living on or near Federal Indian reservations or in 
traditional Indian country such as Oklahoma and Alaska. It 
provides a comprehensive program of preventive, curative, 

23~. The i nf ormat i on found in this portion of the American 

Indian section has been provided by the Indian Health 

Service of the Department of Health, Education and 

Welfare. 


157 



cndDiiitative and environmental services. The Service also 
provides limited assistance to approximately 274,000 of the 
507,000 urban Indians to enable them to gain access to those 
community health resources available to them in areas where 
they reside. 

Indian health advisory boards have played an important 
role in developing IHS policy and allocating resources. Tribes 
also have been actively involved in program implementation. 

As a result of new laws enacted in the last five years, the 
number of tribes managing health services has increased. The 
scope of tribally managed activities is broad, ranging from 
the provision of outreach services in the community to the 
planning, construction, staffing and operation of health care 
facilities. 

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which authorizes 
higher resource levels for a seven-year period, beginning in 
Fiscal Year 1978, seeks to increase the number of Indian health 
professionals for Indian communities. It also authorizes IHS 
to set up programs with Indian urban organizations to improve 
Indians' access to health services. 

Indian Health Developments 

The health of Indian people has improved significant¬ 
ly. This gain is due, in part, to the overall expansion of 
health service and the construction of better health care and 
sanitation facilities. Since 1955, hospital admissions have 
more than doubled; outpatient visits increased seven-fold and 
dental services six times. Partly as a result of the increased 
use of hospitals, the infant mortality rate has been reduced 
by 74 percent and the maternal death rate by 91 percent. During 
the same period, the death rate for influenza and pneumonia 
dropped 65 percent; certain diseases of early infancy, 72 per¬ 
cent. Tuberculosis, once the great scourge of the Indians, in 
1955 struck eight out of every 1,000; now it strikes fewer than 
one. An Indian child born today has a life expectancy of 65.1 
years, an increase of 5.1 years over a child born in 1950. 
Progress and improvements do not mean that the U.S. has suc¬ 
ceeded in raising the health status of Indians to the high level 
that it seeks. Further efforts will be required. 

Sterilization 

An allegation persistently raised by some American Indians 
and echoed by several CSCE states is that the U.S. Government, 
under IHS auspices, is coercing large numbers of Indian women 
to be sterilized. This alleged governmental sterilization 
policy is perceived as a manifestation of a far more monstrous 
governmental policy -- that of genocide. Those who make this 


158 


very serious allegation often cite statistics from a 1976 U.S. 
Government Accounting Office (GAO) report regarding the IHS. 

IHS attributes these allegations to misinterpretations 
of the GAO report, and says there are no suggestions in the 
report that the IHS has undertaken any activities to sterilize 
Indians without their consent. IHS states that is has yet to 
receive a single documented case of coerced sterilization or 
failure to obtain informed consent for performance of a 
procedure that could result in sterilization. However, IHS 
acknowledges that the GAO study cites procedural deficiencies 
in obtaining informed consent. After these deficiencies were 
detected by GAO, IHS initiated several actions to correct them. 
Furthermore, HEW drew up new sterilization regulations and 
improved sterilization reporting and monitoring requirements, 
which are now being carried out by IHS and other health 
services. IHS categorically denies that its aim is to control 
population size in any way, and insists that its goal is to 
enhance and expand the life of the Indian and Alaska Native. 
Statistics show that the Indian population served by IHS has 
twice the birth rate and over three times the population growth 
rate of the U.S. population as a whole. 

Economic Development Efforts 

Many reservation lands are rich in natural resources, which 
can be used by the tribes to lift themselves out of poverty. 

Some tribes are actively pursuing economic se1f-re1iance through 
the development of their oil, gas, coal, uranium and other 
energy resources. Other tribes have not made final decisions 
regarding development of their resources and still others have 
decided against development at this time. If there is to be 
development, it is a function of the Federal Government to 
assure that the best and most economically and environmentally 
sound arrangements are made. In addition, the government is 
to provide technical and financial assistance to ensure that 
the tribal decisions will be based on an expert and experienced 
evaluation of the technical and factual data. 

Help has been provided from the White House or federal 
agencies when tribes have requested it. In 1977, five federal 
agencies gave the member -1r i bes of the Council of Energy 
Resource Tribes more than two million dollars for this 
endeavor. Two agencies, the Community Services Administration 
and the Administration for Native Americans, have ear-marked 
their funding for a human needs assessment of the impact of 
energy development on the affected Indian people. And, the 
Department of the Interior has an ongoing responsibility to 
assert the Indian interest in resource protection and develop¬ 
ment of related policies. 


159 


Legislative Actions 


During 1977 and 1978, Congress passed about 50 bills 
which expressly benefit tribes and individual Indians. The 
most hotly debated Indian issues in the Congress during 1977 
and 1978 were Indian water rights in the Southwest, Indian 
fishing rights in the Northwest and Indian land rights in the 
East. Despite controversy, the 95th Congress passed mutual- 
consent agreements achieving settlement of a water rights case 
in Arizona and the first of the Eastern Indian land claims cases 
in Rhode Island. By an Act of July of 1978, the Ak-Chin Indian 
Community's longstanding water claims were settled, enabling 
the tribe to continue their profitable tribal agriculture pro¬ 
grams, thus avoiding years of economic hardship in litigation. 

Similarly, the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act 
of September of 1978, sponsored and vigorously supported by 
CSCE Commission Co-chairman Claiborne Pell, ratified a 
negotiated settlement of to the case brought by the Narragansett 
Indians under the Indian Non-Intercourse Act of 1790. The Act 
cleared title to acreage in the state authorizing federal funds 
to reimburse the tribe for lands lost and to purchase lands. 

On August 20, 1979, the Administrtion and the Cayuga Nation 

of New York arrived at a land claim settlement that will involve 
the establishment of a trust development fund for the tribe. 

The settlement will soon be sent to Congress for ratification. 

Federal Involvement in Land and Resources 
Tribal Land Acquisition Acts 

Recognizing that the futures of Indian tribal governments 
and tribal economies are largely dependent on a sufficient land 
base to support their populations, it is a continuing United 
States policy to assist tribes with land acquisitions and land 
consolidation programs. During the years from 1975 to 1978, 
Congressional legislation has authorized acquisition by tribal 
groups of about 400,000 additional acres of land, assisting 
some 30 tribes to expand their land base. 

Eastern Land Claims 

The issue of land claims brought by Indians against states, 
municipalities and private landowners in federal courts in the 
eastern U.S. has received national attention. The claims are 
against states, cities and individuals, rather than against 
the Federal Government; they are based on the allegation that 
the Federal Government did not approve transfer of these lands 
by Indians to non-Indians, which is required by a statute first 
enacted in 1790 as the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act. 
Following the ratification of a mutual consent agreement by 
the 95th Congress, the first Indian land claims court settlement 


160 


was reached between the state of Rhode Island and the Narragan- 
sett tribe. In May of 1979, the state returned 1,800 acres 
to the tribe. A similar approach will facilitate the settlement 
of the claims of some 3,000 Indians comprising the Passamaquoddy 
and Penobscot tribes in Maine to a land in that state. 


Now that the Narragansett/Rhode Island settlement is con¬ 
cluded (and a major step toward resolution of the Maine case 
has been taken) other Indian land claims may be examined in 
an atmosphere conducive to fruitful negotiation. 

Water Policy 

Conflicts over water rights in the Southwest constitute 
some of the most intense disputes between the states and 
Indians. Many are the subject of ongoing litigation in both 
state and federal court. For years, the states pursued a policy 
of homesteading on arid western lands, while the Federal Govern¬ 
ment was designing and constructing water projects with little 
regard to the needs of Indian communities or to the potential 
negative impact such projects could have on the ecological 
condition of reservation lands. The U.S. Supreme Court acknow¬ 
ledged Indian water rights early in this century in a decision 
known as the Winters Doctrine. 


In his water policy message on June 17, 1978, President 

Carter announced a new water policy. Implementation of the 
policy is to be conducted in consultation with the Indian 
tribes. The Presidential directive calls for negotiations when¬ 
ever possible to resolve conflicting water claims. Should 
negotiations fail, litigation in federal, as opposed to state, 
courts is f avored. 


Fishing Disputes 

Over the past five years, Indian fishing has been the 
subject of serious public and political controversy. The 
Federal Government -- despite tremendous opposition from non- 
Indian communities -- has used its authority to assert the full 
range of fishing rights reserved to the tribes when the reserva¬ 
tions were created. The government also recognizes the need 
to protect the resource. The government recognizes the right 
of these tribes to fish for commercial, as well as for 
ceremonial and subsistence purposes. 


The United States Government has actively sought to protect 
Indian fisheries from environmental degradation, from the 
potential negative consequences of non-Indian diversion of 
waterways for agricultural and industrial purposes, from exces¬ 
sive non-Indian commercial and sport fishing, and from other 
dangers to the resource. For example, in the State of Cali¬ 
fornia, the government is addressing these problems as it 


161 



attempts to put the Hoopa and Yurok tribes' fishery resource 
in good order for their future use and se1f-management. As 
yet, the United States has avoided going to court to determine 
the extent of the tribal fishery right. The California Depart¬ 
ment of Natural Resources is taking a similarly positive 
approach, working with the federal agencies and the Indians 
to improve the fish stock and to lay a basis for coordinated 
tr i bal/state/ federal management of the resource in the future. 

However, when litigtion cannot be avoided, the Federal 
Government often assumes trustee responsibility for the defense 
of Indian treaty rights in the courts. The Federal Government's 
commitment to protect Indian rights -- even if this would mean 
confrontation with a state -- is exemplified by an emotionally 
charged fishing rights dispute in Washington State. 

In 1974, a landmark court decision (U.S. v. Washington ) was 
announced, affirming the treaty fishing rights of 19 Northwest 
Indian tribes. The decision declared these tribes entitled 
to catch up to half the harvestable fish and to participate 
jointly with the State of Washington in the management of their 
fishery resources. State officials, institutions, courts and 
non-Indian fishers refused to accept and abide by the decision 
and cour t orders. 

Finally, in the middle of the 1977 fishing season, the 
federal courts, at the recommendation of the Administration, 
were forced to take over management of the fishery. Rising 
to the challenge in the face of massive illegal fishing by non- 
Indians, strong public emotion and legal obstacles in the State, 
the federal agencies pooled their resources to aid the federal 
court in managing the fishery. On July 2, 1979, the Supreme 

Court ruled that Indian tribes in the Northwest are entitled 
by treaty to half the harvestable catch, warning State 
authorities to comply. 

Culture and Education 

Until a few years ago, many policy makers viewed education 
as a key to Indian assimilation and often regarded Indian 
culture and history as impediments to the full participation 
of Indians in American life. The excesses of this period 
resulted in great damage to Indian people, producing statistics 
of low educational achievement and a host of related problems, 
including the disruption of Indian families and cultural and 
tribal life styles. 


The older policies were phased out in the early 1970's 
and were replaced 
Under the current 
individual Indian 


with the more enlightened policy of today, 
policy, assimilation is a choice for the 
to make. Indian history and culture are 


viewed as positive assets, rather than negative impediments 


162 



to Indian adjustment to contemporary American life, and the 
control of Indian education is in the hands of the people most 
directly affected by the education being provided, the Indian 
tribes and Indian people. 

The intent of this policy is not only to increase Indian 
participation and involvement in the educational process but 
also to improve the quality of Indian education through the 
development of programs designed to meet the unique educational 
needs of Indian tribes and conmnun i t i es . 

The Indian Child Welfare Act 

In response to valid criticism that it has not adequately 
been protecting the integrity of the Indian family and community 
over the years, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act 
of 1978. The U.S. has recognized that Indian children lost 
ties with their extended families and cultural heritage through 
adoption into non-Indian families or placement in non-Indian 
foster homes and institutions. 

The Indian Child Welfare Act eliminates unwarranted Indian 
parent-child separation; it ends discrimi ntion that has 
prevented Indian parents from qualifying as foster or adoptive 
families; and it provides Indian communities with comprehensive 
child-welfare and family service programs. 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

The religious practices of American Indians are an integral 
part of their culture, tradition and heritage and form the basis 
of Indian identity and value systems. To guarantee Indian 
rights in this regard, the American Indian Religious Freedom 
Act was signed into law in August of 1978. The Act proclaims 
that it is the policy of the U.S. to protect and preserve for 
American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, 
express and exercise their traditional religions, including, 
but not limited to, access to sites, use and possession of 
sacred objects and the freedom to worship through ceremonies 
and traditional rites. 

Cone 1 usion 


A review of U.S. policies and practices with respect to 
Native Americans shows that they are neither as deplorable as 
sometimes alleged, nor as successful as one might hope. In 
some areas, federal policies and programs have failed to achieve 
permanent solutions to the serious problems facing tribes and 
their citizenry. In other areas, appropriate remedies have 
achieved notable progress in meeting the unique needs of Native 
American governments and individuals. The efforts to find 
solutions to Indian problems is made more difficult by the 


163 



highly complex governmental, economic, social and political 
context surrounding Indian life. The important consideration, 
especially in terms of U.S. obligations under the Helsinki Final 
Act, is that serious efforts are being made. 


The funding for Indian programs has risen dramatically 
in the past 20 years, and the educational, social and econ om i c 
conditions are improving. In line with the government policy 
of putting Indian people into determinate roles, Indians are 
managing their own resources, controlling their own assets and 
administering their own programs to a greater degree than in 
the past. 


Resolution of problems in the future will require continued 
and intensified cooperation between concerned government 
agencies and the Native peoples themselves. More opportunities 
should be provided for Indians to share in the formulation of 
federal policy and the development of federal programs that 
will significantly affect their interests. 


The growing cooperation between the Federal Government 
and Indians in defense of their civil rights and tribal rights 
to land, resources and self-government is sometimes perceived 
as a threat by some segments of the American population, who 
argue that the unique legal status of American Indians consti¬ 
tutes special, preferential treatment of them by the U.S. 
Government. However, in general, public reaction to the new 
policies of greater equity toward Indians has been favorable. 

The BIA has established programs to assist the tribes and Native 
peoples to better present their diverse histories, cultures 
and goals to other Americans through the media, school curri¬ 
cula, and other channels of corrmun i ca t i o n . In addition, various 
citizens groups comprised of Indians and non-Indians alike, 
such as the American Friends Service Committee, are helping 
to educate the public about the respective rights of Indians 
and their non-Indian neighbors. 

To further fulfill U.S. obligations under the Helsinki 
accords regarding the rights of American Indians, the Commission 
believes the U.S. Government should energetically pursue the 
more equitable policy lines established in recent years and 
should continue to help increase public awareness of the unique 
nature of American Indian rights. 

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 

The issue of religious liberty is addressed in Principle 
VII of the Helsinki Final Act in two references: 

"The participating states will respect human 
rights and fundamental freedoms, including the 
freedom of thought, conscience, religion or 


1 64 



belief, for all without distinction as to race, 
sex, language or religion. 

"Within this framework the participating states 
will recognize and respect the freedom of the indivi¬ 
dual to profess and practice, alone or in community 
with others, religion or belief acting in accordance 
with the dictates of his own conscience." 

(Principle VII) 

In signing the Final Act, the 35 signatories committed 
themselves not only to a broad pledge to respect freedom of 
religion as a fundamental human right, but also to observe 
specific guarantees for the right of the individual to practice 
religion according to the dictates of his or her own con- 
s cience. 

In the United States, such guarantees for individual 
freedom of conscience have been inscribed in the Constitution, 
elaborated in numerous court decisions and confirmed by tradi¬ 
tion and practice. Testimony to this fact is the diversity and 
vitality of religion throughout the United States. In addition 
to formal religious organizations, there are numerous religious 
groups. According to the recently published Encyclopedia of 
American Religions, there are 1,187 primary r e 1 i g i ous denomi na- 
tions in the United States f** An equally important aspect of re¬ 
ligious life in the United States is that an individual is free 
to choose which religious group, if any, he or she wants to 
join. 


Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, 
religious freedom is guaranteed: "Congress shall make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof." In a provision known as the Establishment 
Clause, no law may be passed which favors one church over 
another, or which establishes an official church to which all 
Americans must belong or support, or which requires religious 
belief or non-belief. And, in a provision known as the Free 
Exercise Clause, no law can interfere with the "free exercise" 
of one's religion, guaranteeing that each citizen is free to 
worship as he or she wishes. In recent times, the Supreme Court 
has interpreted the Establishment Clause through two concepts: 
"neutrality," which prohibits the government from advancing 
or inhibiting religious activities, and "voluntarism," which 
is mainly aimed at restricting governmental jurisdiction over 
private elementary and secondary schools. 

The Establishment Clause has been held by the Supreme Court 
to prohibit: 

7JT. A list oT 161 major religious bodies in the U.S. appears 

in Appendix IV^ Chart 1. 


165 





(1) Mandatory religious exercises such as Bible readings 
or even non-denomi national prayers, in the public elementary 
and secondary schools; 

(2) Promoting religious creeds through the structuring 
of curricula in state-supported schools; and 

(3) Providing financial support through such measures as 
grants, loans and tax credits to non-public el erne ntary and 
secondary schools affiliated with religious institutions, or 
for secular courses of study and the maintenance of facilities. 

On the other hand, the clause has been held not to 
p roh i bit: 

(1) Providing a service such as bus transportation to 
children in both religious and public schools; 

(2) Loaning secular textbooks to children attending 
religious schoo1s; 

(3) Making direct general grants to re1igious-affi1iated 
colleges and universities, depending on the character of the 
college and its ability to separate secular and religious 
functions; and 

(4) Releasing public school children to attend a religious 
period of instruction at places away from schools. 

Further, the Supreme Court has held that granting tax- 
exempt status to church property used solely for worship does 
not contravene the Establishment Clause. 

In regard to the Free Exercise Clause, the Supreme Court 
has ruled that if the purpose or effect of a statute is to 
impede the observance of religions, or to discriminate among 
them, then the free exercise of religion is abridged. 

One of the most important conditions for any religion is 
the right to seek converts. This right has long been upheld 
by the American legal system. One early ruling on this issue 
was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1940 (Cantwe 11 v. 
Connecticu t) in which it was decided that a Jehovah ' s Witness 
could not be prosecuted for breach of the peace by playing a 
promotional record to passersby. 

Soon after this decision, the Supreme Court held that it 
was unconstitutional to tax religious evangelists who sold 
religious tracts and books on the streets or door-to-door. 


166 




In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943), the Court held that hand 
d i s t r i bu tion ol r e1igious tracts, even when accompanied with 
requests for payment or a contribution: 

"...is an age-old form of missionary evangelism 
-- as old as the history of the printing presses. 

It has been a potent force in various religious move¬ 
ments down through the years... It is more than 
preaching; it is more than distribution of religious 
literature. It is a combination of both. Its 
purpose is as evangelical as the revival meeting. 

This form of religious activity occupies the same 
high estate under the First Amendment as do worship 
in churches and preaching from the pulpits..." 

In a more recent case, International Society for Krishna 
Consciousness, Inc, v. Collin's ( 1 977 ), f eder a 1 cour t s have 
struck down state ordinances which forbid proselytizing and 
the sale of religious literature in public places. The courts 
have uniformly held that the Hare Krishna practice of "Sankir- 
tan" (dancing, chanting, distributing literature and soliciting 
contributions) is a protected religious activity. As a result, 
numerous courts have ruled unconstitutional licensing statutes 
which give the licensing officials "unbridled discretion" to 
grant or deny a permit (People v. Fogelson , 1978). The courts 

have uniformly struck down licensing statutes which contained 
standards so broad or vague as to give no firm guidance to 
licensing officials (Levers v. City of Tullahoma, Tennesee, 

1978) and statutes which p 1 aced urTnecessary restrictions on 
religious activities (International Society for Krishna 
Consciousness of We stern Pa., Inc, v. Griffin, 1977). 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that types of 
conduct based on religious belief should receive special protec¬ 
tion. Thus, the Court maintained that Amish parents could 
refuse to send their children beyond the eighth grade in the 
public school system, since the state interest in requiring 
two more years of schooling failed to outweigh Amish religious 
tenets. Similarly, when a Seventh-Day Adventist was fired for 
refusing to work on Saturdays (her holy day), the Court ruled 
that she was fully entitled to unemployment benefits. 

Although the Supreme Court held the state statute 
forbidding religious solicitation to be unconstitutional, it 
did explain what type of regulation is permissible. In Cantwe 11 
v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that: 

"A state may by general and non-discrimi natory 
legislation regulate the times, the places and the 
manner of soliciting upon its streets, and of holding 
meetings thereon; and may in other respects safeguard 
the peace, good order, and comfort of the community 


167 












without unconstitutionally invading the liberties 
of the Fourth Amendment. 

"Nothing we have said is intended even remotely 
to imply that, under the cloak of religion, persons 
may, with impunity, commit frauds upon the public. 

Certainly penal laws are available to punish such 
conduct..." 

In its decisions, the Supreme Court consistently has 
balanced the right of expression against countervailing public 
interests. Public regulation, however, cannot control either 
the right to proselytize or its message -- only its time, place 
and manner. Furthermore, such regulations should be narrowly 
drawn in order to avoid any "chilling" effect on Constitu¬ 
tionally protected rights and to avoid discrimination of any 
form. But, all activity cannot be protected under the claim 
of religious belief. Religious conduct such as polygamy, snake 
handling or the ceremonial use of drugs is not protected under 
the Free Exercise Clause because the Supreme Court has held 
that strong societal interests in safety and morality justify 
the prohibition of such conduct. 

The concept of freedom of religion in U.S. law and practice 
is so basic that the courts have ruled that even parents do 
not have the right to force their children to abandon a religion 
with which the parents do not agree (Katz v. S u perio r Cou r t 
of the State of California for the City and Co unty of San 
Francisco, 1 977). Re 1igious Taws and practices in the United 
States appear to conform with both the spirit and the letter 
of the relevant provisions of the Helsinki Final Act. 

INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS 


One of the major criticisms of the United States' human 
rights record, voiced both by other CSCE countries and private 
domestic organizations, is the nation's failure to ratify the 
International Covenants on Human Rights. The Covenants, which 
were signed by President Carter and are now before the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, were adopted by the United Nations 
in 1966 and brought into force in 1976. They codify -- in 
treaty form -- universally accepted standards for the achieve¬ 
ment and protection of human rights and legally commit ratifying 
states to adhere to those standards. Although American failure 
to ratify the Covenants is not a violation of the specific 
language of the Helsinki Final Act, it is clearly contrary to 
the spirit of the document. Furthermore, this failure excludes 
the U.S. from participating in other international human rights 
structures only open to those states which have ratified the 
Covenants. The sincerity and credibility of the United States 
in the field of human rights are seriously impaired by the fact 
that we have not yet ratified the Covenants. 


168 








The reference to the Covenants in the Final Act is con¬ 
tained in the last paragraph of Principle VII. The CSCE states, 
in addition to pledging themselves to "act in conformity with 
the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations 
and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" also 
reaffirmed their conmnitment to "fulfill their obligations as 
set forth in the international declarations and agreements in 
this field, including inter alia the International Covenants 
on Human Rights, by which they may be bound." Indirect reference 
to the Covenants is made in Principle X which corrmits partici¬ 
pating states to fulfill in good faith their existing obliga¬ 
tions under international law. Clearly then, the Final Act 
does not oblige any country to become a party to any interna¬ 
tional agreement, but rather to fulfill those international 
obligations it has already undertaken. 

Background 

Promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms for 
all was included in the Charter of the United Nations' statement 
of basic purposes. In the early days of the United Nations, 
the Economic and Social Council and its Commission on Human 
Rights decided that an international document on human rights 
should be drafted and that it should consist of a declaration 
of general principles, having moral force; a separate covenant 
legally binding on those states ratifying it; and measures of 
implementation. 

Within a relatively short time, the Commission drafted 
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an historic document 
that set the standards for the achievement and protection of 
human rights in the post-war world. The Declaration is an 
internationally endorsed statement of principles and an 
authoritative guide to the interpretation of the U.N. Charter. 
Although the Declaration does not have the force of law, it 
has had some legal impact in that it has inspired human rights 
clauses in national constitutions and international conventions 
on specific rights since its adoption by the General Assembly 
in December of 1948. 

Having proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights, the U.N. turned to transforming those principles into 
treaty provisions which establish legal obligations on the part 
of each ratifying state. Eventually, it was decided that two 
covenants were needed: one dealing with civil and political 
rights; the other with economic, social and cultural rights. 

The prevailing view was that separate covenants should be 
adopted because civil and political rights could be secured 
immediately whereas adequate economic, social and cultural 
rights could only be achieved progressively, according to each 
nation's available resources. 


169 




It took 18 years before a majority of the U.N. members 
agreed on the wording of the documents. In December of 1966, 
the General Assembly adopted the International Covenants on 
Human Rights. Another decade passed before they were ratified 
by the required 3 5 states necessary to bring them into force. 
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural 
Rights entered into force in January of 1976 and the Interna¬ 
tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights became effective 
in March of the same year. To date, 62 nations have ratified 
the economic, social and cultural treaty, while there are 60 
parties to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 

While the Universal Declaration is essentially a global 
bill of rights which proclaims and affirms certain "equal and 
inalienable rights of all members of the human family," the 
Covenants legally commit each nation to guarantee those rights 
to their citizens while establishing a minimum standard of 
governmental conduct. 

The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 
assures the right of citizens to employment, safe working 
conditions, social security, education, health care, participa¬ 
tion in trade unions, cultural life, scientific research and 
creative activity, and commits governments to guarantee the 
progressive realization of these rights. 


Under the Civil and Political Covenant, state parties are 
obligated to ensure that the individuals within their jurisdic¬ 
tion enjoy a number of rights, including the right to life, 
liberty, security of person, equality before the courts, pre¬ 
sumption of innocence when charged with a crime, freedom of 
thought, conscience, religion, assembly, expression, associa¬ 
tion, movement and residence, and the right to participate in 
voting and public affairs. The treaty also prohibits torture, 
slavery and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 


The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further provides 
for the establishment of a Human Rights Committee which may 
receive and consider communications from one state party 
alleging that another state party is violating the provisions 
of the Covenant. Furthermore, under the Optional Protocol to 
the Covenant, which 23 countries have ratified, the Committee 
may also receive and consider communications from individuals 
claiming to be victims of violations. The Committee is also 
empowered to review and comment on reports required from each 
ratifying nation which detail that nation's implementation 
record. Although far from a fool-proof enforcement mechanism, 
the Committee provides an increasingly important international 
forum to focus attention on the problems of human rights 
violations. 


170 


U.S. Attitude Toward Covenants 


The United States voted for both of the Covenants at the 
United Nations in 1966 but, at the time, expressed concern that 
they "do not go far enough in protecting the rights of all 
individuals." Up until a few years ago, the official American 
position was that the Covenants do more harm than good since 
they provide a dangerous legal basis for the restriction of 
human rights. This position was based on the fact that the 
rights enumerated in the Covenants are not absolute; there are 
clauses which permit a ratifying state to limit the rights and 
freedoms of individuals within their jurisdiction. However, 
restrictions may not be imposed arbitrarily, but only insofar 
as they are necessary to protect "public safety, order, health, 
or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." 
Additionally, limitations on these rights must be prescribed 
by domestic law. The Covenants also specifically prohibit 
interpreting any language in the treaties as justification for 
the denial or further limitation of individual rights. Many 
Western countries, apparently regarding international recogni¬ 
tion of human rights in a legally binding document as outweigh¬ 
ing the potential risks of abuse presented by these clauses, 
have become parties to the Covenants. These include the CSCE 
signatory states of Canada, Denmark, West Germany and Great 
Britain. 

American Views on Ratification 


Opinion in the U.S. has been divided on the merit and 
utility of the International Covenants on Human Rights. In 
the 1950's, some claimed that multilateral human rights treaties 
would infringe upon the powers and rights of the states in the 
federal system. Others opposed the treaties alleging that, 
under the Constitution, the Federal Government lacks the power 
to enter into treaties of a human rights nature. Others allege 
that specific provisions of the Covenants conflict with substan¬ 
tive articles of the Constitution. Isolationists and opponents 
of the United Nations viewed the Covenants and other interna¬ 
tional treaties as attempts to interfere in the domestic legis¬ 
lative process. Conservatives believed that U.S. adoption of 
the economic, social and cultural treaty would make "Marxism 
and socialism the supreme law of the land." 

In 1954, a Constitutional amendment proposed by former Ohio 
Senator John W. Bricker which would have prevented the U.S. 
Government from entering into any international agreement that 
might infringe on the powers of the states or be self-executing 
(i.e. enforceable by the courts without implementing legisla¬ 
tion) was defeated in the Senate by one vote. In order to 
ensure the amendment's defeat, Secretary of State John Foster 
Dulles was forced to pledge that the United States did "not 


171 




intend to become a party to any such covenant or present it as a 
treaty for consideration by the Senate." The Dulles Doctrine, 
as it became known, remained in effect throughout the next two 
decades. 

In the past few years, especially since the signing of 
the Helsinki Final Act, the climate for ratification of inter¬ 
national human rights treaties has greatly improved. The 
passage of time has done much to allay many of the more extreme 
fears about ratification. The enactment of civil rights legis¬ 
lation and the effect such legislation had on the debate over 
state versus federal authority has helped to defuse many of 
the Constitutional issues. The increased interest in interna¬ 
tional human rights promoted by Congress and the Carter Adminis¬ 
tration has also contributed to the general change in attitude. 

In September of 1976, then-presidential candidate Jimmy 
Carter stated that the United States should "move toward Senate 
ratification of several important treaties drafted in the United 
Nations for the protection of human rights" including the Inter¬ 
national Covenants on Human Rights. Six months later, in a 
major address to the United Nations General Assembly, President 
Carter pledged to sign the Covenants and to "seek Congressional 
approval" of t hem. 

In August of 1977, the CSCE Commission issued a comprehen¬ 
sive report on the status of implementation of the Helsinki 
Final Act two years after its signing. In that report, the 
Commission noted that President Carter's pledge was "overdue." 
"Until it is fulfilled," the report said, "the United States 
is at a disadvantage in pursuing respect for the Covenants' 
provisions from those Helsinki signatories which -- on the basis 
of the Commission's findings -- are honoring neither the 
Covenants they ratified nor Principle VII..." The Commission 
recommended that "those Final Act signatories which have not 
yet signed and ratified the International Covenants on Human 
Rights -- especially the United States -- take prompt action 
to do so. " 

On October 3, 1977, a day after the CSCE review conference 

opened in Belgrade, President Carter signed the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Righ.ts and the International 
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 


23. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee of the 
Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 83rd Congress, 1st Session, on 
S.J.Res. 1 and S.J.Res.43, 1933, page 823. 


172 



In Februry of 1978, President Carter submitted the two 
human rights Covenants, along with the International Convention 
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and 
the American Convention on Human Rights, to the Senate for 
advice and consent to their ratification. The President 
observed that "while the United States is a leader in the reali¬ 
zation and protection of human rights, it is one of the few 
large nations that has not become a party to the three United 
Nations human rights treaties. Our failure to become a party 
increasingly reflects upon our attainments, and prejudices 
United States participation in the development of the interna¬ 
tional law of hunan rights." The Covenants are presently before 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has scheduled 
public hearings for mid-November. 

Although the great majority of the substantive provisions 
of the Covenants are entirely consistent with the letter and 
spirit of the U.S. Constitution and laws, the President recom¬ 
mended reservations, understandings or declarations wherever 
a provision is or appears to be in conflict with United States 
law. Annesty International USA, the American Association of 
the International Commission of Jurists and the International 
League for Human Rights -- in a joint statement endorsing 
ratification -- took the position that, "...as a matter of 
policy, reservations should not be used to limit freedoms and 
rights but only to expand them." However, if the proposed 
reservations are necessary in order to ensure the two-third 
majority necessary for passage by the Senate, most advocates 
probably would rather have the Covenants ratified with reserva¬ 
tions than not at all. 


Cone 1 usion 

The Commission believes that ratification of the Interna¬ 
tional Covenants on Human Rights and the Optional Protocol 
should be given the highest priority by both the Administration 
and the Congress. The Commission also believes that a minimum 
number of reservations, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, 
should be attached. 

The Commission strongly urges the Administration to 
encourage the Senate to ratify the Covenants. The Commission 
recommends that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report 
favorably on the Covenants so they may be brought before the 
full Senate during the 96th Congress. The Commission further 
recommends that the Senate ratify the Covenants and that the 
President sign the Optional Protocol and submit it to the Senate 
for advice and consent to ratification. The Commission 
reiterates its 1977 recommendation that: 


173 



"The act of ratification...wou1d be a positive 
step toward compliance with Principle VII and 
creating mechanisms to ensure international respect 
for human rights within and beyond the Helsinki 
states." 


CONELUS ION - CHAPTER 3 

The Commission has tried to interpret Principle VII in 
the broadest possible way in order to address the various 
criticisms directed toward the United States by other signatory 
states and by private groups and individual citizens both here 
and abroad. Although a concerted effort has been made to cover 
as much ground as possible, there are certainly some aspects 
which may have been overlooked or not given the attention they 
deserve. It should be pointed out, therefore, that this report 
-- like the Helsinki Final Act itself -- is a first step in 
a long process. The Commission will continue to monitor and 
encourage compliance -- both in the United States and inother 
signatory states -- with the human rights provisions of the 
Helsinki Final Act. 

Human rights are fundamental to our very existence as a 
nation. Enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, 
upheld by our courts, improved and enhanced by our laws and 
stoutly defended by our people and our elected leaders -- the 
human rights issue is a central theme of our history, our 
society and our future. Although we are not perfect, we are 
proud of our record and proclaim it second to none as far as 
individual freedom is concerned. While, as several parts of 
the human rights section demonstrate, we still have to make 
improvements in the area of economic and social rights, we can 
take pride in the ongoing American struggle to build a society 
in which poverty, discrimination, disease, crime and corruption 
are kept to a minimum if not eliminated altogether. And, again, 
the Commission believes that our record is as good, if not 
better, than any other Helsinki signatory country. 

The Commission has tried to look at U.S. performance both 
broadly and specifically, giving attention to continuing efforts 
to improve, pointing out areas of deficiency, and suggesting 
positive steps toward fulfillment of the human rights promises 
of the Helsinki Final Act. We hope that other participating 
states, particularly those which are so frequently critical 
of our society, will follow our example and take a serious look 
at their own performances, especially in the important and sen¬ 
sitive areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms. At 
Madrid -- as at Belgrade -- the United States will be prepared 
to discuss the status of imp 1 ernentation in the field of human 
rights as well as in other areas, both here and in other signa¬ 
tory countries. 


174 



As this report seeks to point out, U.S. performance in 
the field of human rights is good yet we have recognized that 
there are some areas where performance can and should be 
improved: there is a need for individual Americans and their 
government to continue to be cognizant of our international 
commitments in the field of human rights- If human rights are 
to continue to be -- as they should -- a central part of our 
foreign policy, then we cannot fail to examine our own 
performance at home. This section is a part of that continuing 
s e1f-e x am i n a tio n. 


175 


CHAPTER FOUR 


BASKET II - ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

INTRODUCTION 


The political detente which began in the early 1 9 7 0 ' s 
brought with it the steady expansion of East-West cormnercial 
relations. Two-way trade has increased significantly. Various 
governmental and commercial agreements have been signed between 
the countries of East and West. Industrial cooperation agree¬ 
ments have been entered into by private Western firms and their 
Eastern counterparts. The result has been a steady movement 
toward normalization of commercial relations. 

The Final Act recognized the important link between polit¬ 
ical and economic coexistence and devoted its largest section 
to "Cooperation in the Field of Economics, of Science and Tech¬ 
nology and of the Environment," commonly known as Basket II. 

The main premise underlying the six major provisions of this 
"Basket" is that "efforts to develop cooperation in the fields 
of trade, industry, science and technology, the environment 
and other areas of economic activity contribute to the rein¬ 
forcement of peace and security in Europe and in the world as 
a whole." The participating states, therefore, reaffirm "their 
will to intensify such cooperation between one another, irre¬ 
spective of their systems...." This will be achieved, in 
particular, by facilitating the expansion of commercial ex¬ 
changes, of industrial cooperation and projects of common inter¬ 
est and of cooperative scientific and technological projects, 
particularly in the areas of the environment and transporta¬ 
tion. 


In one sense, the Basket II provisions of the Final Act 
reaffirmed activities and trends that had been in progress 
before the Act's signing and which would have undoubtedly con¬ 
tinued had there been no CSCE. They have, nevertheless, helped 
to pinpoint the major problem areas in East-West trade and to 
help achieve a normal trading pattern between nations with 
differing social and economic systems. Four years after the 
signing of the Final Act, most of the major difficulties in 
East-West economic cooperation still stand as restraints to 
the full development of that cooperation. However, almost all 
the signatory states have taken some small steps forward to 
improve their compliance with these provisions. 

The major portion of this section will focus on U.S. 
efforts to improve commercial ties and to encourage economic 
and scientific cooperation with the member countries of the 
Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) -- Bulgaria, 


176 





Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, 
Romania and the USSR. The United States has consistently and 
traditionally maintained its closest trading relations with 
the other signatory countries of Canada and Western Europe. 
U.S.-West European trade flourished decades before the Final Act 
and expanded on the basis of normal commercial channels with 
minimal government involvement. U.S. two-way trade with NATO 
countries, for example, amounted to over 100 billion dollars 
in 1977 -- which represented 44.9 percent of total U.S. exports 
and 36.17 percent of total U.S. imports. 

The Final Act's provisions in this area are more directly 
applicable to trade between the Eastern and Western countries 
than they are to trade between the Western countries alone. 

U.S. trade with the G\EA countries operates under more variable 
conditions due to two divergent economic systems and a 
relatively new trading relationship. Therefore, the basis of 
this report will follow the expected development of U.S.-CMEA 
relations rather than Western trade relations. 

The United States, since the beginning of this decade, 
has actively promoted East-West commercial ties largely as a 
way of easing international tensions and improving the U.S. 
trade balance. As a result, two-way trade with the countries 
of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, in general, has risen 
steadily since 1 970. Wh i1e East-West trade still accounts for 
a small percentage of overall U.S. trade, total trade turnover 
with the East rose from a modest million dollars in 1970 

to over 5 billion dollars in 1978. Present trends indicate 
that trade with these countries is likely to continue to expand, 
though at a somewhat slower pace. 

The growth of U.S. trade with the European CMEA countries 
has been a steady but slow process because of the differences 
between the two economic systems and the relatively recent 
development of the trading relationship. The United States 
Government, within the limits of its competence, has actively 
addressed many of the issues contained in Basket II by promoting 
and facilitating East-West trade. 

Change, as the Final Act recognizes, must come gradually. 
The Helsinki accord's most valuable contribution is that it 
serves as an added impetus for that change and as the "con¬ 
science" of improved East-West relations. It made the 


26. See Appendix IV, Chart 2. 


177 



concerned U.S. agencies more aware of the problems that exist. 
Gradually and within the limits of U.S. interests and the 
American system, they have begun to modify and resolve those 
pr ob 1 ems . 


COMMERCIAL EXCHANGES 


General Provisions 


The Final Act's provisions regarding the promotion of 
commercial exchanges, one of six major Basket II sections, were 
designed to form the framework for the participating states 
to seek improved trade and economic relations with each other. 


The introduction to this first section, "General Provi¬ 
sions," calls on the signatory states to encourage the expansion 
and diversification of the structure of trade. Specifically, 
that trade should be expanded, according to the Final Act, by 
improving economic and commercial arrangements, by negotiating 
long-term bilateral and multilateral agreements, and by 
recognizing the beneficial effects of the granting of most- 
favored-nation treatment. Also noted in this section is the 
importance of favorable monetary-financial policies, of removing 
other trade problems, and of avoiding domestic market disruption 
to ensure the growth and diversification of trade. 

The United States has frequently voiced its commitment to 
an open and equitable world trading system in the belief that 
the expansion of trade can contribute significantly to the wel¬ 
fare of each country's citizens and to a better climate of over¬ 
all relations. The Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN) which 
have just been concluded reflect U.S. interest in reducing, 
as much as possible at the present time, both tariff and non¬ 
tariff barriers to trade. Under the new trade agreements, 
tariffs will be reduced and new standards for the conduct of 
trade -- designed to eliminate many non-tariff barriers to trade 
-- will be in effect. The decisions reached during the MTN 
negotiations -- in which the U.S. played an active role -- wi11 
hopefully lay the basis for a significant expansion of world 
trade in future years. 

However, because the United States is a free market 
economy, the U.S. government is limited in its ability to 
increase commercial exchanges which are conducted solely by 
private enterprises. Nevertheless, the Government has organized 
numerous programs to facilitate U.S. businessmen's entry into 
specific contractual relations and, of all the other signatory 
states, has consistently maintained among the least restrictive 
conditions for foreign businessmen operating within this 
country. Details of these various initiatives are outlined 
in the sections which follow. 


178 




Criticisms which have been raised about U.S. compliance 
in the Basket II area have largely centered around allegations 
of non-compliance with the "General Provisions" introduction 
to Basket I I * s first section. The main thrust of these criti¬ 
cisms, which have repeatedly been raised during bilateral and 
multilateral discussions by the Eastern CSCE states, is that 
U.S. trade policies in four specific areas discriminate against 
the CMEA states, violate the relevant Final Act provisions and 
stand as obstacles to the development of trade between the 
United States and the CMEA nations. These four areas, and their 
related Final Act provisions, are: the granting of most- 
favored-nation trade status ("the participating States... recog¬ 
nize the beneficial effects which can result for the development 
of trade from the application of most favored nation treat¬ 
ment"); the extension of government and government-backed 
credits ("the participating States...note the importance of 
monetary and financial questions for the development of inter¬ 
national trade"); export control restrictions ("the partici¬ 
pating States...wi11 endeavor to reduce or progressively elimin¬ 
ate all kinds of obstacles to the development of trade"); and 
market disruption and antidumping regulations ("if the partici¬ 
pating states resort to safeguard measures, they will do so in 
conformity with their commitments in this field arising from 
international agreements"). 

Most-Favored-Nation Benefits and Trade Agreements 

Prior to the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in August of 
1 975, the United States had extended non-discrimi natory tariff 
treatment (most-favored-nation ) to Canada, the countries of 
Western Europe, Poland and Yugoslavia. Since that time, the U.S. 
has implemented commercial agreements, which include 
MFN tariff treatment, with Romania and Hungary. The Agreement 
on Trade Relations with Romania was negotiated during 1975 and 
entered into force on August 3, 1975, two days after the signing 
of the Final Act. It was renewed in 1978 for an additional 
three year period. The United States also negotiated a trade 
agreement with Hungary in 1978, and the agreement entered into 
force on July 7, 1978, for an initial three year term. 

The United States does not extend MFN treatment to the 
German Democratic Republic, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and the 
USSR. Extension of MFN to these countries must be done within 
the framework of the 1974 Trade Act which provides the legisla¬ 
tive authority for the granting of most-favored-nation status 
to non-market economies. Section 402 of the Act links the 
extension of MFN to a country's emigration practices and 
requires annual Congressional review of those practices. 
Specifically, the Act allows the President to waive the Act's 
prohibitions against extending MFN and entering into a trade 
agreement with a non-market economy country which does not grant 


179 


its citizens the opportunity to emigrate if he: (1) determines 
that such a waiver will substantially promote the objectives 
of freer emigration and (2) receives assurances from the foreign 
government that its emigration practices will, in the future, 
lead substantia 11y to the objectives of freer emigration. 
Furthermore, MFN can be extended only as part of a bilateral 
trade agreement, which is limited to a three year, renewable 
term. Section 405 of the Act outlines certain minimum 
provisions which must be contained in a trade agreement. If 
these conditions are satisfied and a trade agreement is nego¬ 
tiated, MFN is extended to the other party. It should be noted 
thatwhile trade agreements may be extended under the Act for 
renewable three year periods, the Presidential waiver authority 
required for MFN to non-market economies (except Poland and 
Yugoslavia) must be renewed annually. While the U.S. has 
recognized the principle that the application of most-favored- 
nation treatment can have beneficial effects, the Trade Act 
acknowledges that such effects can be lasting only if MFN is 
granted on the basis of effective reciprocity and in conjunction 
with efforts to reduce serious political differences. 

Both the Romanian and Hungarian Agreements were concluded 
in accordance with these requirements and include substantive 
provisions designed to promote trade and economic cooperation. 
These include non-discriminatory trade relations; principles 
governing the expansion of trade; facilitation of business con¬ 
tacts; market disruption safeguards; rights relating to 
financial transactions; rights relating to patents, trademarks, 
copyrights, and other industrial rights and processes; the 
establishment of government trade offices; and settlement of 
commercial disputes. 

With respect to Czechoslovakia, the Trade Act contains 
a separate provision (Section 408, The Long-Gravel Amendment), 
which requires that the U.S. and Czechoslovakia renegotiate 
their agreement of July 5, 1974, concerning the settlement of 
the claims of U.S. citizens against the Government of Czecho¬ 
slovakia. The renegotiated agreement must be submitted to 
Congress for approval at the same time as any proposed trade 
agreement. The claims agreement has not yet been renegotiated. 

Other Government-to-Government Agreements 

The United States has also entered into numerous other 
government-to-government agreements with the CMEA nations, each 
of which has helped contribute to an expansion of trade and 
economic cooperation. Three significant economic agreements 
have been signed with Romania. The Long-Term Agreement on 
Economic, Industrial, and Technical Cooperation, implemented 


180 


in 1977, contains detailed provisions governing equity invest¬ 
ment, joint ventures, and other types of cooperation agree¬ 
ments. The Convention between the United States and Romania 
with respect to taxes on income was entered into force February 
26, 1976 and became effective January 1, 1974. This convention 

is designed to eliminate double taxation and to lay down princi 
pies relating to taxation of foreign business. The Maritime 
Transport Agreement of 1976 sets out maritime transport princi¬ 
ples. Other corrmer c i al - re 1 ated agreements signed with the 
Romanian government include: a Fisheries Agreement (1976), Air¬ 
worthiness Agreement (1976), Textiles Agreement (1978) and an 
Agreement on Atomic Energy. 

As a representative sample, the U.S. has negotiated and 
signed further agreements on: Fisheries (1976), Grain (1975), 
Copyright License (1978) and Maritime Affairs (1975) with the 
Soviet Union; Fisheries (1976) and Culture and Science (1977) 
with Bulgaria; and a Fisheries Agreement (1976), a Cooperative 
Funding Agreement in Science and Technology (1975), and a Tex¬ 
tile Agreement with Poland. The U.S. and Hungary, in addition 
to the 1978 U.S.-Hungarian Agreement, have also signed a bi¬ 
lateral income tax treaty (1979), Parcel Post Agreement, an 
Agreement on Cooperation in Culture, Education, Science and 
Technology (1977), and one on Visa Facilitation (1976). 

Monetary-Financial Questions 


Private Credits 

All countries have access to U.S. private banks and finan¬ 
cial institutions in order to arrange private loans and credits 
which are extended on the basis of prevailing commercial rates 
and terms. Substantial amounts of private credit have been 
extended to the Eastern countries through these channels and 
many of these credits are available in the form of Eurodollar 
loans. Hungary has recently completed arrangements with U.S. 
banks for the direct borrowing of 300 million dollars on the 
U.S. market. The Federal Reserve has estimated that U.S. banks 
had claims of 4.4 billion dollars on CMEA countries in December 
of 1976, and another source notes that U.S. banks hold 12.3 
percent of all bank claims in non-market countries. 

Non-discriminatory restrictions on borrowing in the United 
States are contained in the Johnson Debt Default Act of 1934, 
which prohibits a private person from purchasing or selling 
the bonds, securities, or other obligations of, or loan money 
to, a foreign government which is in default on its obligations 
to the United States Government. Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria 


181 


are not in default on such obligations and thus are not affected 
by the Act. However, the USSR, Poland and Czechoslovakia are 
potentially affected. The applicability of the Act with regard 
to the German Democratic Republic has not been clarified. 
Nevertheless, exceptions to the Act and interpretations by the 
Attorney General have so narrowed the scope of the Act that 
a significant amount of financing directly from private U.S. 
sources, including export financing, is still possible even 
to those countries directly affected. 

Government and Government-Backed Credits 

The major U.S. Government financing institutions are the 
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), which finances agricultural 
exports, and the Export-Import Bank, which finances other export 
transactions. Between 1975 and 1978, the CCC extended over 
one billion dollars in agricultural credits to the eligible 
countries of the CMEA. In the same period, the Export-Import 
Bank authorized approximately 237 million dollars in financial 
support (loans, guarantees and insurance) to Poland and Romania, 
including over 179 million dollars in direct credits. In the 
spring of 1979, Hungary completed arrangements with the Export- 
Import Bank that would allow it to receive export financing 
support. 

Unlike private credits, the extension of U.S. Government 
credits is governed by specific provisions of U.S. law. Section 
402 of the Trade Act prohibits the extension of government or 
government-backed credits to non-market economy countries, other 
than Poland, unless they have implemented trade agreements under 
the terms of the 1974 Trade Act. Romania and Hungary have 
implemented such agreements and are therefore eligible for U.S. 
government credits. 

The Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, also con¬ 
tains certain provisions governing the extension of financial 
support. Such support may not be granted to Communist countries 
-- as defined in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 -- unless 
the President determines that it would be in the national 
interest to do so. These determinations have been made for all 
CMEA countries that are otherwise eligible for Eximbank financ¬ 
ing. In addition, the Act requires a separate national interest 
determination by the President for any transaction with a 
Communist country in excess of 50 million dollars. 

Section 7(b) of the Export-Import Bank Act also imposes 
the following limitations on financial support for the USSR: 

-- A 25 million dollar ceiling on the export of goods or 
services involving research, exploration or production of fossil 
fuel energy resources, unless the Bank makes a detailed prior 
report to the Congress. 


182 


-- A 40 million dollar ceiling on the purchase, lease or 
procurement of any product or service which involves research 
or exploration for fossil fuel energy resources. 

-- No financial support for the purchase, lease or 
procurement of any product or service for production (including 
processing and distribution) of fossil fuel energy resources 
(the Church Amendment). 

-- A 300 million dollar ceiling on aggregate financial 
support extended after the date of enactment of the Export- 
Import Bank Amendments of 1974, unless the President determines 
that a higher ceiling is in the national interest, and Congress 
adopts a concurrent resolution approving such determination. 
Under this procedure, restrictions may be waived on financial 
support for the research, exploration, and production of fossil 
fuel energv resources (the Stevenson Anendment). 

Approximately 455 million dollars in Export-Import Bank 
financial support to the Soviet Union, extended before the 
Stevenson Amendment restrictions became effective, is being 
repaid. 

Presently pending before Congress is a bill introduced 
by Senator Adlai Stevenson (D.-Ill.) to revise his original 
amendment and certain provisions of the Trade Act, and a similar 
Amendment by Rep. Les AiCoin (D.-Oreg.). Their bills would 
essentially substitute limitations imposed on credits to the 
Soviet Union with a two billion dollar limitation on bank loans 
to any non-market economy, would eliminate the other credit 
restrictions for the Soviet Union, and would revise Section 
402's waiver provisions to empower the President to make his 
own determination without requiring formal assurances from the 
foreign government. 


Other Trade Questions 


Gene r a 1 

In the context of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations in 
Geneva, the U.S. negotiated separate bilateral agreements with 
Romania, Hungary and Poland covering tariffs and non-tariff 
measures not dealt with in the multilateral context. These 
agreements will lead to the removal of several obstacles to 
trade. They will result not only in lower tariffs but also 
will address such non-tariff barriers as a lack of commercial 
and economic information and statistics, import quotas, exchange 
rates, and restrictions on hiring of personnel. 

Export Controls 

The United States, like all countries with an inherent 
interest in promoting exports, must consistently strive to main¬ 
tain a proper balance between the need to increase exports 


183 


generally and to control those exports which might harm national 
security or foreign policy interests. The two concerns are 
often contradictory, and both the legislative and executive 
branches of the U.S. Government strive to periodically review 
and revise the laws and procedures governing U.S. export con¬ 
trols to ensure that they best meet the requirements of both 
these interests. Such a review is presently underway in the 
Congress, which is examining ways of reforming the legislation 
authorizing export controls for national security, foreign 
policy and short supply purposes. 

Basic statutory authority for controlling the export of 
most products with both civilian and military applications from 
the United States is contained in the Export Administration Act 
of 1979, which recently replaced the Export Administration Act 
of 1969. Controls on all exports to communist countries were 
originally established in the Export Administrtion Act of 1949. 
The 1979 Act emphasizes the need to encourage trade. It also 
sets criteria by which exports may be controlled: to protect 
United States national security interests, to further U.S. 
foreign policy objectives and international responsibilities, 
and to protect the domestic economy from exports of scarce 
materials. 

Responsib1ity for administering the Act has been delegated 
by the President to the Department of Commerce, with the support 
and consent of the Department of Defense (which evaluates the 
military applicability of proposed exports) and the Department 
of State (which reviews control for foreign policy purposes 
and coordinates multilateral export controls). 

The great majority of U.S. manufactured exports -- 95 
percent -- fall under a "general license" category which does 
not require a specific license application by the exporter. 

Only specified commodities to particular countries require so- 
called "validated licenses" which U.S. companies must obtain 
from the Commerce Department and which specify the type, 
quantity and destination of the export. The categories of goods 
which require these licenses and the countries to which these 
exports are restricted are published in a Commodity Control 
List. Such products include: 

1. Civilian products "with significant potential military 
applications, whose use for military pur poses...is judged to 
endanger U.S. security." 

2. Thirty-eight high technology items which are not 
available elsewhere. 


184 


3. Goods relating to nuclear facilities and weapons, and 
crime control and detection equipment, that are controlled 

for foreign policy reasons. Procedures and criteria for control 
of nuclear items are contained in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Act of 1978. 

4. Short supply products, such as petroleum. 

5. Recently, petroleum equipment has been controlled for 
foreign policy considerations. 

In addition, technical data relating to the production 
of these items are subject to controls. 

Government procedures for reviewing validated license applica¬ 
tions, particularly to East bloc countries, are complex and involve 
several government agencies. The exporter submits his application 
to the Commerce Department's Office of Export Administration. 

There it is reviewed by the Operations Division, which numbers 
each application and the Licensing Division which decides whether 
applications should be sent to the Policy Planning Division. 

Policy Planning decides whether to issue final approval or to refer 
the application to individual agencies, to the Defense Department 
or to a multi-agency Operating Committee. The Operating Committee, 
composed of representatives from the Department of Commerce, 
Defense, State, Treasury, Energy, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the National Security Council, the Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agency, and the CIA (as advisor), meets weekly 
to review license applications. All decisions must be approved 
unanimously. In the case of an impasse, the application is re¬ 
viewed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary-level Advisory Committee 
on Export Policy. If that Committee fails to reach a unanimous 
decision, the decision is appealed to an Assistant Secretary-1 eve 1 
Advisory Committee and then to a Cabinet- 1eve1 Export Administra¬ 
tion Review Board and finally to the President, if necessary. 

In general, the principal criteria for reaching a decision 
on controlling a product have been: the nature of the export; its 
real or potential military uses, the end-user, its suitability 
for the proposed use and the risk of its being diverted for other 
purposes; the consequences of diversion should it occur; the 
advanced technology incorporated within the product; its avail¬ 
ability within the country of destination or abroad; and the 
economic and commercial benefits of the transaction. 

There have been, since Helsinki, a number of we 11-pub 1icized 
decisions in the area of national security export controls, 
especially regarding computers and oil field equipment. In June 
of 1977, the U.S. Department of Commerce denied a license to a 
U.S. firm seeking to sell an advanced computer to the Soviet 
Union. Denial was based on potential military applications for 
the equipment. Also in July of 1978, after the trials of Helsinki 
monitors Shcharansky, Orlov and Ginzburg in the Soviet Union, 
another U.S. firm was denied a license to sell a computer to the 


185 


Soviet news agency TASS on the grounds that the computer had excess 
capacity which could be diverted to other uses. That decision 
has since been reversed. In August of 1978, the U.S. announced 
a new special control procedure governing sales to the USSR of 
items used for exploration or production of petroleum or natural 
gas. Under the new procedures, the U.S. exporter must obtain a 
validated license from the Commerce Department, but no such cases 
have yet been disapproved under the new regulations. In December 
of 1978, during the meeting of the joint U.S.-USSR Commission, 
then Commerce Secretary Juanita Kreps announced the approval of 
22 deals for sales of oil field equipment to the Soviet Union 
valued at 65 million dollars. 

While procedures are sometimes cumbersome due to efforts to 
make the best decisions regarding critical national questions, 
attempts have been made to expedite the process. Despite an 
ever-growing workload (65,000 validated license applications 
were received in 1978 compared to 54,000 in 1977; applications 
are being received at a current rate of 77,000 for 1979), the 
Commerce Department has been processing 75 percent of all appli¬ 
cations in 10 days or less; 96.7 percent are being processed 
in 90 days or less. This is a significant improvement over last 
year's processing times, but still indicates that exporters had 
to wait over three months for decisions on several thousand 
app1ications. 

The Commerce Department has also attempted to decrease 
the need for interagency review of certain cases and to insti¬ 
tute administrative deadlines for case review. In 1978, for 
example, 7,823 cases out of 65,432 received, required an inter¬ 
agency review. Out of those interagency cases, 2,435 involved 
exports to countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 
out of which only 374 required a full multiagency review by 
the Operating Committee. The Office of Export Administration 
has also been reorganized and its staff increased to enable 
a more rapid handling of license applications. 

Congress has also attempted, in its periodic reviews of 
the Export Administration Act, to improve the decision-making 
procedures involved in U.S. export control policies by clarify¬ 
ing and limiting specific licensing criteria, by reducing 
licensing delays and by minimizing unilateral U.S. controls. The 
1977 Amendments to the Act called for a limitation of export 
regulations and commodity control lists, for a periodic reass¬ 
essment of export policies toward individual countries, and for 
a more expeditious handling of individual applications. The 
1979 amendments to the Export Administration Act have recently 
passed the Senate and House (introduced by CSCE Commissioner 
Jonathan Bingham (D.-N.Y.)) Cormnissioner Bingham's bill is 
the first major reform of evport control legislation in 10 
years. It amends the Export Administration Act to (1) to make 
a clear distinction between foreign policy and national security 


186 



criteria; (2) reduce the number of categories requiring 
validated licenses by encouraging the periodic removal of goods 
as they become obsolete and by allowing one application for 
multiple exports; (3) improve the efficiency of the licensing 
process by setting time limits on an agency's decisions, by 
continuously reviewing items controlled for national security 
reasons, and by requiring greater consideration of foreign 
availability; and (4) strengthen coordination of controls 
with other countries. 

The voluntary, multilateral export Control Coordinating 
Committee (COCOM) was formed in 1949 to coordinate the national 
export controls of strategic commodities from member countries 
-- in recognition of the fact that effective controls required 
the agreement of the major producing states. COCOM periodically 
reviews and updates an embargo list it maintains of items which 
are mutually agreed to be of strategic significance. Individual 
transactions of items on the embargoed list may be approved 
for export after rather lengthy consultations with, and the 
unanimous approval of, the other member states. The present 
list includes 149 items divided under three categories -- 
international, international atomic energy, and international 
military. All transactions are secret, and there are no multi¬ 
lateral enforcement mechanisms. Each country unilaterally 
decides whether to submit an export request for COCCM approval 
and what enforcement measures to take. 

Market Disruption and Other Safeguards 

U.S. trade with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe has 
generally increased (with a small decline in 1977) without 
serious or abrupt fluctuations. The greatest variation has been 
in U.S. agricultural exports, particularly wheat and corn, which 
depend on the needs of the importing countries. In order to 
ensure stability in international grain markets, the U.S. and 
the USSR, in October of 1975, signed an agreement on the supply 
of grain and informal understandings have also been reached 
with Poland and the German Democratic Republic on the purchase 
of U.S. agricultural commodities. 

Because most Eastern European countries and the Soviet 
Union maintain complex import licensing and foreign exchange 
allocation systems to regulate imports, it is unlikely that 
a surge in U.S. exports could be interpreted as leading to 
market disruption in those countries. For its part, the United 
States maintains laws to safeguard against market disruption, 
dumping, and foreign subsidies. These laws are in keeping with 
the spirit of the Helsinki Final Act and are within our General 
Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) obligations. 

Four basic legal provisions govern the investigation of 
market disruption or injury complaints against imports from 


187 


non-market economies: the Anti-Dumping Act of 1921, the market 
disruption provisions and the escape clause provisions of the 
1974 Trade Act, and the countervailing duty provisions of the 
1930 Tariff Act. Except for the market disruption provisions 
of the Trade Act, these laws are non-discriminatory and may 
involve imports from any country. While the market disruption 
provisions apply only to Communist countries, they are generally 
consistent with the measures permitted under the GATT protocols. 

(The following sections are taken primarily from analyses 
provided by the U.S. International Trade Commission): 

Antidumping 

The Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended, is intended to 
counter unfair foreign competition created by price discrimina¬ 
tion. Whenever the Secretary of the Treasury determines that 
a class or kind of foreign merchandise is being imported into 
the United States at less than fair value, thereby injuring, 
threatening injury to, or preventing the establishment of, an 
industry in the United States, a special dumping duty, equal 
to the amount by which the imported merchandise is sold below 
"fair value," is levied and paid on all such imported merchan¬ 
dise. This is applicable to all countries. 

Normally, sales at less than fair value are determined to 
exist if the price of goods exported to the United States is 
less than the price at which such or similar goods are sold 
in the exporting country for internal consumption. Where there 
are insufficient home market sales, fair value determinations 
are based on sales for export to countries other than the United 
States or sales outside the exporting country by facilities 
of a related company, as appropriate. If there is insufficient 
or inadequate information to determine fair value under one 
of the above methods, fair value is based on a "constructed 
value" of the products' costs, expenses and shipping fees, 
determined in accordance with Section 206 of the Act. Section 
203(b) of the Act, added by the Trade Act of 1974, provides 
that sales in the home market at less than the cost of produc¬ 
tion are to be disregarded in determining foreign market value 
where such sales have been made over an extended period and 
in substantial quantities and are not at prices that permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in 
the normal course of trade. If there are insufficient home 
market sales above the cost of production, constructed value 
must be used. 

Within six months after the initiation of an investigation 
(nine in complicated cases), a preliminary determination as 
to whether sales at less than fair value exist is made by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. If the determination is affirmative, 
appraisement of imports is withheld, and future shipments may 


188 


enter only under a bond sufficient to cover possible future 
dumping duties. The final determination is made within three 
months thereafter. If the final determination is affirmative, 
the case is forwarded to the U.S. International Trade Corrmission 
(USITC) for a determination of whether the imports at less than 
fair value are injuring, threatening injury to, or preventing 
the establishment of a U.S. industry. An affirmative determina¬ 
tion of injury by the USITC is followed by a formal Dumping 
Finding, after which all imports covered by the Finding are 
subject to the assessment of duties to offset any dumping mar¬ 
gins that exist on each entry of the merchandise following the 
date at which appraisal was withheld. 

In April of 1978, the Treasury Department issued new regu¬ 
lations on the calculation of fair value of i mp o r t s f r om state- 
controlled economies -- imports which cause particular problems 
because prices of goods in such economies are determined by the 
state and not by free market forces. In general, the determina¬ 
tion of fair value will be made on the basis of the normal cost, 
expense and profit as reflected by either (1) prices at which 
such or similar merchandise of a non-state-contro11ed economy 
country or countries is sold either for home consumption or to 
other countries; or (2) the constructed value of such or similar 
merchandise in a non-state-contro11ed-economy country or 
countries. 

Since Helsinki, several cases have been brought to the 
International Trade Commission charging that OMEA countries have 
been selling goods at less than fair value. Given the size of 
the trade, however, relatively few findings of injury have been 
made and only rarely have duties been assessed. Since 1970, 
only four antidumping cases were initiated against CMEA coun¬ 
tries, and only one resulted in the final assessment of duties. 
On September 16, 1975, the USITC notified the Secetary of the 

Treasury that an industry in the United States was being injured 
by reason of imports from Poland of electric golf carts sold 
at less than fair value. As a result of that determination, 
special dumping duties were imposed by the Treasury Department. 

On April 12, 1977, the International Trade Corrmission 

reported to the Secretary of the Treasury that no domestic 

industry was being or was likely to be injured by imports of 

clear sheet glass from Romania found by Treasury to be sold 
at less than fair value, and dumping duties were not imposed. 

On August 7, 1978, the Department of the Treasury insti¬ 

tuted an antidumping investigation with respect to standard 
household incandescent light bulbs from Hungary. Treasury, 
doubtful that an industry in the United States was being, or 

was likely to be, injured by the Hungarian imports, referred 

this question to the USITC, and on September 5, the Commission 
found that there was no reasonable indication of injury, or 


189 


'ikelihood thereof. Treasury thereupon terminated its investi¬ 
gation. An investigation was also instigated with respect to 
the dumping of carbon steel plate from Poland which resulted 
in a finding of no injury on June 18, 1979. 

Mar ket Disruption 

The market disruption provisions (Section 406) of the Trade 
Act give the President authority to restrict imports from non- 
market economy countries if such imports cause or threaten to 
cause material injury to the U.S. domestic industry. The 
provisions apply only to communist countries and were included 
in the Act in order to provide an alternative means of dealing 
with the problem of applying existing safeguards, such as the 
Anti-Dumping Act, to the products of communist countries. Pro¬ 
cedures and criteria used by the International Trade Commission 
to make a determination of market disruption with regard to 
imports from non-market economy countries parallel those used 
to determine domestic injury in escape clause cases by imports 
from both market and non-market economy countries. 

Under Section 406 of the Act, in order to conclude the 
existence of market disruption, imports must be: (1) the 
products of a Communist country, (2) increasing rapidly, and 
(3) a significant cause of or threat of material injury to the 
industry. Similar provisions apply to all countries under the 
escape clause mechanism of the 1974 Trade Act. When determina¬ 
tions of market disruption are made, the President may take 
immediate actions to restrict imports or he may decide to take 
no action if he determines that such relief would not be in 
the national economic interest. 

From 1976 to the present, two investigations with respect 
to two CMEA countries have been conducted under Section 406 
of the Trade Act, neither of which has resulted in the limita¬ 
tion of imports. 

On May 16, 1978, following the receipt of a petition for 

relief from clothespins imported from Poland and Romania, the 
International Trade Commission determined that these imports 
did not disrupt the market for clothespins produced by a 
domestic industry. 

In July of 1979, U.S. ammonia producers filed a petition 
with the USITC for relief from Soviet ammonia imports, which 
increased rapidly in 1978 as a result of a compensation agree¬ 
ment between Occidental Petroleum and the Soviet Union. 

The USITC has recommended that the President impose a three 
year quota on the importation of anhydrous ammonia. If 
accepted, the quota would limit imports to one million tons 
in 1980, 1.1 million tons in 1981 and 1.3 million in 1982. 


190 


In the sensitive area of textile imports, the U.S. has 
eliminated quantitative restrictions against Hungary and 
Czechoslovakia in return for corrmitments from each country to 
consult with the U.S. in the event of rapidly rising U.S. 
imports and possible market disruption. 

Escape Clause 

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 ("escape-clause") 
provides a means whereby relief may be sought for the purposes 
of facilitating orderly adjustment to import competition. When 
petitioned, or on their own initiative, the Commission is 
required to determine whether an article is being imported into 
the United States in such increased quantities as to be a sub¬ 
stantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the 
domestic industry producing an article similar to or directly 
competitive with the imported article. This provision closely 
parallels the market disruption provisions of the Trade Act 
except that it applies to imports from all countries. 

Countervailing Duty 

Pursuant to Section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ("Count¬ 
ervailing Duty Law") as amended, the International Trade Commis¬ 
sion determines with respect to any duty-free article on which 
the Secretary of the Treasury has determined that a bounty or 
grant is being paid, whether an industry in the United States 
is being or is likely to be injured, or is prevented from being 
established, by reason of importation of such article. If an 
affirmative determination is made, duties, in the amount of the 
bounty or grant are assessed and collected except where the 
Secretary of the Treasury determines that adequate steps have 
been taken to reduce or eliminate the adverse effect of the 
bounty or grant, or that the imposition of an additional duty 
would not be in the national interest of the United States. 

In recent years there have been no countervailing duty investi¬ 
gations with respect to any of the non-market economy signa¬ 
tories to the Helsinki Final Act. 

Cone 1 usions 

U.S. restrictions on granting the USSR and several other 
East European nations most-favored-nation treatment and an 
offering of U.S. Government credits under the conditions set 
forth by Section 402 of the 1974 Trade Act are, strictly speak¬ 
ing, not a violation of Basket II provisions. The Final Act 
states only that signatories should "recognize the beneficial 
effects" of granting MFN treatment, which the United States 
does by granting MFN to almost all the signatory states. Sec¬ 
tion 402 of the Trade Act was voted into law in 1974, before 
Helsinki, in an effort to encourage greater compliance by 
certain GMEA nations v/ith key human rights and emigration 


191 


policies later embodied in Principle VII and Basket III of the 
Final Act. By doing so, U.S. law sets basic conditions for the 
extension of non-discriminatory trading status and government- 
backed credits -- conditions which, since Helsinki, both Hungary 
and Romania have met. As a result, bilateral trade agreements 
have been concluded with these nations, which have thereby 
received both MFN benefits and official government credits. 

Some members of Congress and key Administration officials 
have recently been advocating the granting of MFN status to 
certain countries on the basis of improvements in emigration 
performance and oral assurances that these improvements will 
continue. In keeping with their international commitments and 
with the requirements of U.S. law, those signatory states which 
do not have a preferred trading status with the U.S. may move 
significantly closer to acquiring such preference by substantial 
compliance with the provisions of Principle VII and Basket III 
of the Final Act. 

The United States, like any other nation, can and should 
exercise export controls over items that affect national 
security. Nothing in the Final Act suggests otherwise. How¬ 
ever, the CSCE Commission suggests, to further our commitment 
to the trade promotion sections of the Final Act, that Congress 
continue to reexamine existing export control legislation with 
an eye toward reducing present controls and streamlining the 
procedures which govern these controls. Since only less than 
one-half of one percent of all export control applications 
received in 1978 were rejected, it becomes clear that too many 
items are subject to review. For example, curbs on exports 
of items which are found to be readily available elsewhere ought 
to be removed or reduced to an absolute minimum. In these cases 
we are, for no practical reason, inhibiting substantial export 
sales while giving the impression that the U.S. may be an 
unreliable supplier. The Commission also notes that our allies 
in COCOM, one or more of which would be the probable competition 
for these sales, are much less zealous than we in withholding 
their high technology products from Eastern markets for security 
reasons. The Commission generally believes that exports should 
be controlled only for important national security or foreign 
policy considerations and we should continue to deny export 
licenses to American products that are indeed unavailable else¬ 
where and critical to our national security. 

The Congress also should continue to examine ways of 
streamlining the export control bureaucracy to ensure that such 
decisions are made as expeditiously and as predictably as 
possible. Long, indefinite waiting periods for export licenses 
harm present and future sales and make it more difficult for 
U.S. industries to compete with foreign firms. 


192 


The Corrmission urges the continued scrutiny, by Congress 
and the Administration, of U.S. export control laws and 
procedures to ensure that both national security and national 
commercial interests are met. 

The Commission has noted previously that criticisms raised 
against U.S. anti-dumping laws, as they are applied to non- 
market economies and market disruption provisions do, in fact, 
create some difficulties for CMEA states attempting to increase 
exports to the U.S. The Final Act does, however, recognize the 
principle that trade should not be conducted in a manner which 
could cause injury to domestic markets. Under U.S. procedures, 
no imports from CMEA states have yet been limited under the 
Trade Act's market disruption provisions and in only one case 
have duties been assessed under U.S. antidumping laws. As 
Karen Taylor and Deborah Lamb from the Department of Commerce 
noted in a recent article: "In the U.S., in 1977 and the first 
six months of 1978, some 168 escape clauses, antidumping, coun¬ 
tervailing duty, unfair trade practices and market disruption 
cases were under active investigation. Only 5 percent of these 
cases involved communist countries as contrasted to the fact 
that 56 percent of the cases involved industrialized countries 
and 39 percent involved developing countries." In all cases, 
the Department of Treasury and the International Trade Commis¬ 
sion give careful consideration to the evidence submitted by 
both sides and reconsider decisions in light of new evidence. 

Business Contacts and Facilities 


The text of the Final Act calls on the signatory states 
to take measures designed to promote the expansion of business 
contacts, especially between sellers and users, in order to 
improve the development of commercial and economic relations. 
Specifically, the 35 states agreed to take measures that would 
encourage firms to accelerate the conduct of business negotia¬ 
tions, that would improve vital information on domestic 
legislation and would facilitate the provision of permanent 
representation offices, hotel accommodations and residences, 
and necessary means of communication. 

The United States, both privately and officially, has 
consistently supported the Basket II concept that improved 
business contacts and facilities are of vital importance to 
the development of trade between nations, particularly nations 
with differing social and economic systems. In the U.S. view, 
personal contacts between businessmen who negotiate contracts 
are the most effective means of ensuring successful trade 

27. Karen Taylor and Deborah Lamb, "Communist Exports to the 
West in Import Sensitive Sectors," Issues in East-West 
Commercial Relations: Joint Economic Committee (GPO, Jan. 
1979), p. 129. 


193 






relations. While some problems remain in U.S. compliance with 
these provisions, particularly in the granting of U.S. entry 
visas, significant progress has been made by the United States 
since the signing of the Final Act. 

Business Contacts: Commercial Commissions 

Because of their frequency, it is virtually impossible 
to report the exact number of trade contacts made between U.S. 
businessmen and their East European counterparts since the Con¬ 
ference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. There can be 
little doubt, however, that this largely unofficial and private 
network of trade contacts -- which, because of the free enter¬ 
prise nature of the American economy, continues and expands 
primarily on the basis of private initiatives -- has increased 
since August of 1975 and has been one indication of the positive 
U.S. attitude toward East-West trade. 

A further indication of that positive attitude in official 
U.S. policies may be found in the four joint Commercial Commis¬ 
sions which the United States has established with the USSR, 
Poland, Hungary and Romania. Three of these Commissions -- 
with the Soviet Union, Poland, and Romania -- were established 
as a result of summit meetings with the respective leaders in 
the early 70's and were viewed as a way of expanding trade by 
creating an institutionalized, governmental framework for 
resolving mutual economic problems. The U.S./Hungarian Economic 
Committee was formed as a result of the Trade Agreement signed 
in March of 1978 by the two countries to meet the same purposes 
as the other Commissions. The Commissions essentially set trade 
goals, facilitate corrmercial relations and open significant 
channels for the expansion of business contacts and industrial 
cooperation. They are chaired by senior officials on both 
sides, and include lower-level working groups operating in 
specific problem areas. Each Commission meets annually, alter¬ 
nating between Washington and the foreign capital, where discus¬ 
sions are held at the cabinet level. 

The joint Commissions have been especially active in 
examining problems regarding the avai1 abi1i1ity of business 
facilities and improved operating conditions in the CMEA 
nations. They also have been responsible for improvements in 
bilateral exchanges of commercial information. Foreign trade 
laws and regulations on both sides have been studied and 
explained, as have foreign investment conditions, tariff struc¬ 
tures and domestic regulations and standards. The Commissions 
have, in addition, served as channels for relaying information 
on specific trade and investment opportunities. They have also 
considered questions of trade agreements, trade targets, trade 
promotion and industrial cooperation. 


194 


Highlights of the activities of the various joint 
Corrmissions since the signing of the Helsinki Final Act include: 

U.S.-USSR Joint Commercial Commission 

--Aseminar on the organizational and legal aspects of 
U.S.-USSR trade, initiated under the auspices of the Joint 
Commission, was held in Moscow in December of 1975. The U.S. 
side made presentations on export controls, tariffs and customs, 
market disruption, Food and Drug Administration requirements, 
financing regulations, laws governing foreign investments in 
the United States, U.S. commercial law, product liability and 
contract problems. 

-- During the fourth quarter of 1975, the Commission's 
Working Group of Experts instituted an exchange of information 
on economic, industrial and trade trends in the United States 
and the USSR for the first half of that year. 

-- The Sixth Session of the Commission was held in Washing¬ 
ton in June of 1977. Prospects for greater use of medium and 
short term credit and possible cooperation in large-scale 
industrial projects in the USSR were reviewed. Members con¬ 
sidered ways to facilitate the work of businessmen and agreed 
to conduct regular informal meetings in Washington D.C. and 
Moscow. In addition, the Commission's Working Group of Experts 
exchanged information on plans and projections for the U.S. and 
Soviet economies. Both sides agreed to continue to exchange 
economic, commercial and trade data, and to hold two seminars 
on trade-re 1ated subjects. 

-- The Seventh Session of the Commission, co-chaired by 
then U.S. Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal and then U.S. 
Commerce Secretary Juanita Kreps, met in Moscow in December 
of 1978. Participants reviewed implementation of the long-term 
Agreement of 1974, which called for economic, industrial and 
technical cooperation between the United States and the USSR. 
They also considered possible U.S.-USSR cooperative projects 
and discussed problems of financing and business facilitation. 
The Working Group of Experts discussed further exchanges of 
economic information and continuation of seminars on economic 
cooperation. At the session, then Commerce Secretary Kreps 
announced the approval of 73 outstanding export license requests 
for oil and gas production equipment. 

U.S.-Polish Joint Trade Commission 

-- At the October of 1975 meeting, the Polish delegation 
submitted a specific list of projects offering the best oppor¬ 
tunities for joint cooperation which was subsequently dis¬ 
seminated to the /Vnerican business community. 

-- The 1976 Commission discussions held in Washington D.C. 
identified areas of Polish industry deemed highIy-suitab1e for 
industrial cooperation. 


195 


-- Potential cooperation in third country projects was 
a feature of the 1978 Commission meeting. Joint bidding on 
power, food and wood processing projects was discussed. The 
American side subsequently publicized these opportunities for 
American business. 

-- A Working Group on Industrial Cooperation was estab¬ 
lished by the Commission and it plans to meet in 1979. 

-- At the conclusion of the Eighth Session of the Commis¬ 
sion in Washington, then Commerce Secretary Kreps and Polish 
Vice Chairman Mieczyslaw Jagielski signed an agreement on the 
Participation of Small and Medium-sized Firms and Economic 
Organizations in Trade, Economic and Industrial Cooperation. 

U.S.-Hungarian Economic Committee 

-- The United States and Hungary established a Joint 
Economic and Commercial Commission which met for the first time 
in March of 1979. As in other such groups, the Commission is 
designed to provide a forum for the discussion of possibilities 
and problems in the future development of U.S.-Hungarian trade. 
U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Trade 
Frank Weil (and a member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission) and 
Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade Istvan Torok served as co- 
chairmen. Industrial cooperation, business facilitation, trade 
relations and agricultural trade were discussed, with the 
Hungarian side providing a list of areas for potential 
cooperation with U.S. firms. 

U.S.-Romani a Economic Commission 

-- The Second and Third Sessions of the Joint Commission 
(November of 1975, November of 1976) set and reaffirmed specific 
trade targets for bilateral trade. 

-- The 1976 Session also reviewed a study of Romanian joint 
venture regulations and their practical applications for 
interested businesses. 

-- The 1979 meeting of the Joint Commission, attended by 
then Secretary of Commerce Kreps, explored questions of trade, 
industrial cooperation and business facilitation at plenary 
and special working group sessions. Four contracts and agree¬ 
ments between U.S. and Romanian firms were signed at the session 
totaling 35 million dollars worth of business. 

Business Contacts: Trade and Economic Councils 

In addition to the four joint governmental Commissions, 
seven private bilateral trade and economic councils have been 
established to assist in problems of trade development between 
the U.S. and the CMEA nations. These councils, which on the 
U.S. side are made up of leading businessmen, actively seek 
to improve commercial relations and contacts between the U.S. 
business community and that of the CMEA states. They carry 


196 


out a broad range of activities to meet these goals, including: 
annual meetings of all members; smaller meetings and symposia 
on individual topics or specific problem areas; guidance and 
logistical support for individual businessmen; advice on doing 
business in each other's countries; assisting in contracts, neg¬ 
otiations and disputes settlement; supplying economic data and 
information on regulations and procedures; developing lists of 
conrmon commercial terminology; identifying trade opportunities; 
researching trade-re1ated issues; participating in exhibitions 
and fairs; and liaison services with the respective governments. 

Edward T. Wilson and Donald 3. Hasfurther of the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce remarked in an article on the councils: 

"The councils are... demonstrab1e evidence that 
American business, despite other pressures and 
conflicting worldwide commitments, is actively 
interested in maintaining the dialogue with 
Eastern Europe -- that it wants to pursue not just 
specific deals but an improvement in the entire 
framework of commercial relations with ecoggmic 
systems radically different from our own." 

Trade and economic councils are presently in effect between 
the U.S. and the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the German Demo¬ 
cratic Republic, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. All councils, 
except those with the USSR and the GDR, operate under the admin¬ 
istrative aegis of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but retain 
autonomy in questions of policy. U.S. government agencies, prin¬ 
cipally the Department of Commerce, advise and assist the coun¬ 
cils on request. They provide speakers for meetings, informa¬ 
tional materials and an Honorary Director, the Secretary of 
Treasury for the U.S.-USSR Council. They do not, however, seek 
to set council policy or influence council operations. The 
councils, in turn, supply advice on East/West trade policy ques¬ 
tions to both the executive and legislative branches of govern¬ 
ment . 


Major undertakings and accomplishments of these councils 
since the signing of the Helsinki Final Act include: 

U.S.-USSR Trade and Economic Council 

(Established in 1973 to facilitate expansion of U.S.-USSR 
trade. Membership includes 230 U.S. companies and 114 Soviet 
organizations. U.S. Secretary of the Treasury is an honorary 
director). 

28. Edward T. Wilson and Donald 3. Hasfurther, "Bilateral 
Business Councils with East European Countries," East 
European E conomies Post-He 1sinki: 3oint Economic Com- 

mi 11ee (GPO, Aug. 1 977), p~. TT46. 


197 







-- At the 1976 Annual Directors Meeting, council committee 
members discussed new forms of economic cooperation, sale of 
Soviet licenses, means of promoting tourism and expansion of 
financing for bilateral trade. Seminars were also held on 
scientific and technological subjects. 

-- The Council's meeting of directors and members in Los 
Angeles in November of 1977 reviewed questions of trade oppor¬ 
tunities, new forms of economic cooperation, financial aspects 
of U.S.-USSR trade, legal problems and the development of 
scientific and technological cooperation. 

-- At the Council's 1978 annual Executive Committee meeting 
in New York, the committee discussed the future work of the 
Council in actively promoting Soviet-American business coopera¬ 
tion and developing trade and economic relations. 

-- The Council held its sixth annual meeting of directors 
and members in Moscow in December of 1978 which Treasury Secre¬ 
tary Blumenthal attended. Council participants discussed tech¬ 
nological cooperation between U.S. and Soviet organizations, 
financing of U.S.-USSR trade, problems of smaller U.S. companies 
in trading with the Soviet Union and proposed major projects 
involving cooperation between U.S. and Soviet organizations. 

-- The Council has established offices in New York and 
Moscow offering a wide range of business facilitation services 
to its members. Services include counseling businessmen, 
scheduling appointments, arranging seminars, and assisting with 
special events and delegation visits. 

Czechos1ovakia-U.S. Economic Council 

(Created on October 17, 1975, by an agreement between 
presidents of the U.S. and Czechoslovak Chambers of Commerce). 

-- The first council meeting took place in Prague in 
mid-1976 and reviewed ways of resolving outstanding legal and 
structural issues restricting bilateral trade. 

-- In April of 1979, a counci1 -sponsored seminar, "Trade 
and Industrial Cooperation with Czechoslovakia," was held in 
Boston. The meeting, attended by leading Czechoslovak bankers 
and foreign trade officials, was designed to acquaint American 
business with cooperative and trade opportunities in 
Czechoslovakia. A meeting of the Council's Working Group on 
Industrial Cooperation was held following the seminar. 

U.S.-Hungarian Economic Council 

(Established by an agreement between the two chambers on 
March 14, 1975). 

-- The first two council meetings focused on possibilities 
for industrial and technical cooperation and on procedures for 
improving bilateral commercial conrmun i ca t i on s . 


198 


-- The Department of Commerce and the U.S. Section of the 
Hungarian-U.S. Economic Council assisted the Hungarian Chamber 
of Commerce in organizing a series of promotional seminars in 
November of 1977. The seminars, titled "Hungary, 1978 - 
Expanding Trade and Cooperative Ventures," took place in 
Washington, Chicago, San Francisco and New York and featured 
leading Hungarian government officials, bankers and business 
leaders. Trade opportunities with Hungary were discussed. 

The Commerce Department's Bureau of East-West Trade and District 
Offices assisted in the planning, scheduling and execution of 
the even t s. 

-- In October of 1978, a council seminar titled "Trading 
and Investing in Hungary: Opportunities Under MFN," was held 
in Chicago. The seminar publicized trade and investment oppor¬ 
tunities in Hungary in light of the mutual extension of most- 
favored-nation tariff treatment. 

U.S.-GDR Economic Council 

(A 15-member Council created in June of 1977). 

-- In May of 1978, the Council aided the GDR in staging 
the first GDR Economic Technological Congress, which was pre¬ 
sented in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Economic, scien¬ 
tific and technological progress in the GDR and its relation 
to U.S.-GDR trade prospects were discussed. Presentations on 
various key high technology industries in the German Democratic 
Republic were also featured. 

U.S.-Polish Economic Council 

-- A May of 1976 workshop titled "Doing Business with 
Poland," provided 83 American firms with information from Polish 
authorities and East-West traders. 

-- Another seminar was held in Chicago during April of 
1979, co-sponsored by the U.S.-Polish Council and the Illinois 
State Chamber of Commerce. 

U.S.-Bu1garian Economic Council 

(Created by the two Chambers of Commerce on September 24, 
1974). 


-- The Council has held annual meetings, the last of which 
took place on March 5, 1979. A delegation of 16 U.S. 
businessmen visited Bulgaria this year under the aegis of the 
council and held productive meetings with Bulgarian Chief of 
State Zhivkov and Minister of Foreign Trade Christov. 


199 


Romania-U.S. Economic Council 


(Created on December 4, 1973 by the two Chambers of 

Commerce). 

-- Council meetings have been held annually since the first 
session in 1974. The bilateral Council has been able to play 
a central role in securing Congressional approval of the U.S.- 
Romanian Trade Agreement in July of 1975 and in the growth in 
U.S.-Romanian trade that has followed. 

-- In December of 1976, the Council co-sponsored a 
workshop on U.S.-Romanian trade and on the problems that have 
arisen in the course of that trade. 

Yet another indication of the U.S. business community's 
active interest in furthering business contacts with their 
counterparts in the CMEA nations is the community's effective 
participation in the work of the International Chamber of 
Comerce's (ICC) East-West Liaison Committee. The Committee 
is a unique multilateral forum which allows non-governmental 
business circles from the industrialized market and non-market 
economy states to meet regularly and discuss mutual problems 
in their trading relations. The Committee has been discussing 
issues such as financing, marketing, trade facilitation and 
industrial cooperation in East-West trade and is currently 
seeking ways to facilitate ICC arbitration of disputes involving 
firms in member states. 


Trade Promotion 

Since the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, the U.S. 
Government has been carrying out an active program of official 
trade promotional events ranging in scope from major commercial 
exhibitions, technical sales seminars, catalogue shows and 
semi nar exhibit s. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce, since August of 1975, has 
sponsored official American participation in 36 major commercial 
exhibitions in every CMEA country -- many in traditional East 
European marketplaces such as Poznan, Plovdiv, Brno and Leipzig. 
Still other events were staged in Moscow, Bucharest and Buda¬ 
pest. These exhibits brought over 600 U.S. exhibitors to 
Eastern Europe, many of them for the first time. Show themes 
were technical and provided opportunities for new and signifi¬ 
cant contacts and exchanges of information in their respective 
areas . 

Official American commercial events in Eastern Europe and 
the USSR since Helsinki have included the organization of 36 
technical sales seminars, covering each country of the region. 
Here again, the emphasis has been on high-technology products 
and the promotion of commercial and technically oriented con- 


200 


tacts between U.S. and East European industry officials. 

Official trade promotion efforts during the post-He 1sinki period 
have also included 13 exhibits of American industrial and scien¬ 
tific catalogues. They were presented as a way of acquainting 
Soviet and East European ministries, purchasing organizations 
and enterprises with U.S. products and technology. 

In addition, the U.S. Government continues to operate a 
U.S. Commercial Office in Moscow, a Trade Development Center 
in Warsaw and a Business Facilitation Center in Prague to pro¬ 
vide businessmen with on-the-spot information and assistance, 
technical support services, liaison assistance with government 
officials and facilities for staging small sales presentations. 
Since 1975, 33 semi nar/exhibits have been held in the Commercial 
Office in Moscow, while nearly one hundred firms have presented 
their products at the Warsaw Trade Development Center. U.S. 
trade promotion events in Eastern Europe were attended by 
approximately 2,650 American firms during the period under dis¬ 
cussion. 

Additionally, as part of its domestic activities, the U.S. 
Department of Commerce has organized an Advisory Committee on 
East-West Trade, composed of leading members of the business 
and academic communities. It meets quarterly to advise the 
Commerce Department on ways to facilitate the expansion and 
promotion of East-West trade. 

Visa Is s uance 

While no provision in this Basket II section speaks speci¬ 
fically to the question of entry visa issuance, the question 
does naturally arise in the "spirit" of promoting individual 
contacts among businessmen. Criticisms have been raised regard¬ 
ing U.S. visa laws and procedures which, it is alleged, discri¬ 
minate against businessmen from the CMEA nations -- making it 
more difficult and time-consuming for them to obtain U.S. entry 
visas and thus impairing conditions for the expansion of indivi¬ 
dual contacts and the development of trade. Specifically, in 
addition to broader U.S. visa restrictions on the entry of 
Communist Party members, Basket II-related complaints have 
focused on U.S. Final Act non-compliance in refusing visas to 
several businessmen from CMEA countries on national security 
grounds and in the lengthy delays many Eastern businessmen have 
experienced in obtaining entry visas. (See Basket III section 
on U.S. visa policies for more detailed discussion of the 
p rob1em). 


29~. See Appendix IV,Chart 3 for a one year summary example 
of these various events. 


201 



In fact, several businessmen from the CMEA states -- who 
had previously entered the U.S. on numerous occasions -- have 
been denied visas on national security grounds over the past 
year primarily as a result of new stricter U.S. procedures 
recently established to review such cases. There also have 
been, in some instances, lengthy delays in reaching decisions 
on particularly difficult cases. 

All countries, of course, maintain the right to refuse 
entry permission to individuals whose presence may damage 
national security interests. The occasional delays some 
businessmen experience may be attributed to the fact that the 
procedures are still new and to the fact that prudent decisions 
must be carefully considered. For the large majority of Eastern 
businessmen, U.S. visas are granted promptly and with few or 
no difficulties. The United States has attempted to ease that 
process by proposing the extension of multiple entry visas to 
resident businessmen from the CMEA states on a reciprocal basis 
(agreements have already been signed with the Soviet Union and 
Romania in 1977 and the GDR in 1978). The U.S. also has pro¬ 
posed the reciprocal abolition of restricted travel areas. 

Nevertheless, for those few who must wait months 
for a response to their visa request or who are suddenly denied 
a visa when they had had no prior difficulties, U.S. visa 
policies may appear to delay the flow of trade and the expansion 
of business contacts. Under existing legislation regarding 
those policies, however, economic or foreign policy concerns 
may not be considered in making decisions on visa applicants 
who may pose a national security risk. The Commission therefore 
recommends that the appropriate bodies in Congress re-examine 
the relevant legal provisions (Sections 212(a) (27) and (29) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act) and amend the law to 
allow for consideration of other criteria in decisions rendered 
under those provisions. The Commission also recommends that 
the relevant government agencies work to streamline present 
procedures to ensure that visa requests from applicants who 
may fall under Sections 27 or 29 are processed as expeditiously 
as possible and that applicants are informed as soon as possible 
of the status of their cases. (See Basket III visa section 
for more detailed discussion of recommendations). 

Business Facilities and Working Conditions 

Few, if any, other signatories of the Helsinki accords 
offer comparable opportunities for the favorable working condi¬ 
tions and facilities called for in Basket II of the Final Act. 
The same laws apply to firms from any foreign nation wishing 
to establish representation offices in the United States. Over 
20 Soviet and East European-owned companies currently operate 
in the United States, most of them out of New York City. 


202 


Since the signing of the Final Act, the United States has 
acted favorably on several requests by East European commercial 
organizations to expand and facilitate their operations in the 
U.S., both in terms of personnel and scope of activity. For 
example, the U.S. has allowed the foreign partners of Soviet- 
U.S. contracting or joint venture firms, such as Belarus 
Machinery and the U.S.-USSR Marine Resources Company, to reside 
and work in the United States. The U.S. has also granted 20 
other Soviet requests for long term commercial visitors. In 
addition, the Soviet Union was recently invited to establish 
a representative banking office in New York to improve mutual 
banking and commercial interests. 

The U.S. Government has also granted approval to Hungary 
to establish a branch office of its New York Commercial Office 
in Chicago, and to open an office of the Hungarian National 
Bank in New York, to the GDR foreign trade organization WMW 
Export-Import to open a commercial office in New York, and to 
Bulgaria to establish a branch of its commercial office in San 
Francisco. Approval was given for the Romanian Bank of Foreign 
Trade to establish an office in New York this year. Romania 
also plans to apply for permission to open commercial offices 
in Atlanta and Houston. To date, 10 offices outside Washington 
have been established to promote Eastern commercial interests 
in the United States. In addition, because there is no tax 
discrimination to impede their activities, these firms and 
offices face the same tax laws as any other foreign office or 
firm. Similarly, there are no restrictions on use of telex 
or other normal business communication practices by these 
firms. As in the case of other countries, few restrictions or 
limits are placed on rental or purchase of office or dwelling 
space by these firms. 

In addition to commercial offices, the United States has 
assented to the establishment of a number of official trade 
and tourist promotion offices representing the various CMEA 
states. Both governmental and non-governmental offices must 
comply with all U.S. laws and regulations, such as the Foreign 
Agents Registration Act. These laws are applied on a non- 
discriminatory basis, as are applicable state and local laws. 

Economic and Commercial Information 


Basket II commits the Final Act signatories to "promote 
the publication and dissemination of economic and commercial 
information at regular intervals and as quickly as possible" 
in order to contribute to "the continuing flow of trade and 
better utilization of commercial possibilities." Specifically 
noted in this section is the need for the dissemination of data 
on the national economy (production, national income, budget, 


203 



consumption and productivity); foreign trade statistics and 
laws; information on national economic plans and forecasts; 
and foreign trade organizational data. 

The availability of relevant, detailed and widespread 
economic and commercial information has always been considered 
by the U.S. as a cornerstone for the long-term, stable and 
mutually beneficial development of East-West trade. U.S. firms 
are accustomed to operating on the basis of easily accessible 
information detailing all aspects of a proposed transaction. 

The frequent dearth of such information in many of the signatory 
countries has been a problem of increasing concern to U.S. 
businessmen and the U.S. Government, especially since some 
countries, in particular the Soviet Union, have significantly 
reduced their output of economic data in recent months. 

To help fill that information gap, the U.S. Commerce 
Department's Bureau of East-West Trade publishes numerous 
pamphlets and monthlies to assist U.S. businessmen in their 
Eastern transactions. The Bureau disseminates monthly trade 
statistics, semi-annual analyses, market surveys and annual 
reports on East-West trade, as well as special reports on 
specific topics of mutual interest. These include, since the 
signing of the Helsinki Final Act: country background reports, 
selected market surveys, analytical studies, monthly summaries 
of "U.S. Trade Status with Communist Countries," 13 guides in 
the "Overseas Business Reports" series on specific countries 
and on trading in the CMEA countries, a regular flow of economic 
trends reports intended to inform American business of commer¬ 
cial conditions and opportunities in these countries, and 
periodic publications such as "The Helsinki Final Act - A Guide 
for the U.S. Business Community," "Foreign Trade Organizations 
in the USSR" and "U.S.-USSR Trade: Selected List of Sources." 

The U.S. East-West Foreign Trade Board, created as a result 
of the 1974 Trade Act, also publishes a quarterly report on 
the status of U.S. trade with non-market economies, as does 
the International Trade Commission in its "Report to the Con¬ 
gress and the East-West Foreign Trade Board on Trade Between 
the U.S. and Non-Market Economy Countries." 

In addition, the U.S. Government publishes a vast quantity 
of information regarding the U.S. economy^^foreign trade 
statistics and foreign trade regulations. 

Basic sources for statistical information on the U.S. 
economy are available to those living in the United States, 
as well as to foreigners, and include: 


30. See Appendix V for examples of types of publications 
issued by one agency, the Department of the Treasury. 


204 



-- S urvey of Current Business, published monthly by the 
U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

The S urve y contains approximately 2,500 statistical series on 
all aspects of the U.S. economy. 

-- B usiness Statistics, published by the U.S. Department 
of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. This source contains 
detailed notes on the statistical series found in the S urve y 
of Current Business. 

-- 1972 Census of Manufacturers, Annual Survey of 
Manufacturing, Current Industrial Reports, all published by 
the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Census. 

-- U.S. Industrial Outlook for 1979, published annually 
by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Industry and Trade 
Administration. It analyzes trends in production in over 200 
U.S. indus tries. 

-- Foreign Trade of the U.S. series, published by the U.S. 
Department of Commerce's Census Bureau. 

-- Business Conditions Digest, a monthly issue of economic 
indexes most useful to business forecasters and analysts. 

-- Federal Reserve Bulletin, a monthly publication of the 
Federal Reser ve System which gives monthly information on U.S. 
finances and capital markets. 

-- Bureau of the Census Catalog, published by the U.S. 
Department of Commerce. 

In the area of foreign trade data, the United States 
provides extensive trade statistics in nomenclatures which are 
convertible into many other classification schemes, including 
the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC). Monthly 
data to the seven digit level on exports and imports by com¬ 
modity and country are published by the Census Bureau as series 
FT 410 and FT 135 respectively. Detailed annual data are avail¬ 
able in seven different publications. 

U.S. foreign trade regulations are published by a variety 
of sources and are all publicly available; they are not, 
however, collected in one central publication. The sources 
include: the Federal Register; administrative guidelines 
published by f edera1, state and local governments; trade and 
professional journals; Tariff Sched ule of the United States 
Annotated; U.S. Food and Drug Administration; National Bureau 
of Standards; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Internal Revenue 
Service; Office of Export Administration; Customs Bureau; U.S. 
Patent Office; and the Securities and Exchange Conmi ssion. 

All sources are widely available, and many are on hand at U.S. 
commercial libraries throughout East and West Europe. 


205 


















A great deal of economic information is also gathered and 
distributed through the bilateral joint commercial commissions 
and economic councils. 

The United States has pursued its goal of improving the 
flow of commercial information in multilateral forums as well, 
particularly through its efforts within the United Nation's 
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE). In 1977, the U.S. 
developed and provided the ECE Trade Committee with a comprehen¬ 
sive list of data needed to improve conditions for East-West 
trade development -- an ECE project which the U.S. initially 
proposed. The U.S. submission included an illustrative list 
of sources of U.S. statistical information on production, 
national income, budget, consumption, productivity, agriculture 
and finance, as well as foreign trade. An addendum to the ECE 
document provided an organizational chart of the U.S. Department 
of Commerce, outlining the structure of the bureaus responsible 
for East-West and West-West trade, and a list of widely avail¬ 
able trade directories. 

Also within the framework of the ECE, U.S. delegates to 
the Senior Economic Advisors and the Corrmittee on the Develop¬ 
ment of Trade have participated in seminars designed to develop 
long-term forecasts for the economic growth of the ECE region 
in general, and specifically, long-term trade aspects of the 
region's development. 

The U.S. has supported the ECE's mandated study of possi¬ 
bilities for establishing a multilateral system of notification 
of foreign trade laws and regulations (MUNOSYST). Unfortunate¬ 
ly, lack of an effective definition of "laws and regulations" 
affecting trade has kept the U.S. from participating directly 
in the trial runs. The U.S. has, however, actively participated 
in the Conferences of European Statisticians for more than two 
decades, and in March of 1977, the U.S. hosted a seminar for 
the Chief Statisticians of the ECE member countries on statis¬ 
tics of the coming decade. The U.S. has strongly supported 
the work of the Conference, as well as the OECD and the GATT, 
on harmonization of statistical nomenclature and development 
of national statistics in important fields. 

Marketing 

The importance of "adapting production to the requirements 
of foreign markets" is highlighted in this Basket II section 
by calling on the signatories to encourage trade promotion 
efforts in the areas of marketing techniques and knowledge. 
Market research and advertising, establishment of a spare parts 


206 



and supply network, after sales services and the training of 
technical personnel are cited among the specific areas where 
trade promotion efforts could be improved. Encouragement of 
multilateral cooperation in trade promotion, including 
marketing, is also specified, particularly within the ECE. 

Implementation of this section is closely tied to the pre¬ 
vious two sections, since solid knowledge of a particular market 
requires solid information about, and good contacts in, that 
market. The U.S. Government, through the Bureau of East-West 
Trade (BEWT), has been actively involved, since the signing 
of the Final Act, in organizing marketing seminars, promotional 
events and facilitative services to acquaint U.S. businessmen 
with the Eastern market and Eastern businessmen with the U.S. 
market. 

Within the period under discussion, the Bureau of East-West 
Trade sponsored 14 outreach seminars in various American cities 
to inform U.S. companies, mainly exporters, of trade opportuni¬ 
ties, markets and business practices in Eastern Europe. There 
has also been a measure of official assistance for promotional 
events staged by East European governments in the United States, 
such as "Hungary 1978" and the GDR Economic-Technological Con¬ 
gress . 

Additionally, the U.S.-USSR Joint Commercial Commission 
in 1977 and 1978 sponsored two seminars on marketing in the 
United States and the Soviet Union respectively. The 1977 
seminar, "How to Market in the USSR," was held in Washington 
and Chicago and was attended by approximately 250 American 
businessmen. The "How to Market in the United States" seminar 
held in Moscow during May of 1978 reviewed advertising, market 
research, U.S. import laws and regulations and other topics of 
interest to Soviet exporters. The other joint Commissions and 
Councils have, as well, sponsored numerous workshops and semin¬ 
ars relating to questions of marketing research and techniques. 

BEWT also provides extensive facilitative services for 
U.S. businessmen who need advice or information on the markets 
of the CMEA states and for visiting Eastern trade mission dele¬ 
gations who need to arrange appointments with U.S. buyers and 
s e 1 1 e r s . 

Moreover, the U.S. has been very supportive of multilateral 
ECE projects to improve marketing knowledge. The ECE sponsors 
annual seminars aimed at increasing East-West trade by improving 
marketing knowledge, and the U.S. has been an active participant 
in these activities. Five such seminars have been held to 
promote better marketing arrangements, closer business contacts, 
broader business representation and a more extensive exchange 
of trading information. U.S. participants at the most 
recent seminar, held in April of 1979 in Poznan, Poland, on 


207 


methods and techniques of market entry for industrial products, 
presented a paper on "Advertising as a Technique to Introduce 
New Products into the United States." 

INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION AND PROJECTS OF COMMON INTEREST 


The Final Act explicitly encourages the participating CSCE 
states to facilitate and further all forms of industrial cooper¬ 
ation arrangements, as they are deemed instrumental in strength¬ 
ening economic cooperation, expanding international trade and 
contributing to economic growth. Such encouragement should 
include: the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral agree¬ 
ments; the provision of necessary information, such as full 
project details, economic plans and technica1-economi c data; 
and the improvement of conditions for and contacts among part¬ 
ners in industrial cooperation projects. The facilitation of 
a special subset of arrangements, "projects of common interest," 
is specifically noted in the areas of energy and transportation. 

Industrial Cooperation 

While the U.S. Government has generally supported long-term 
industrial cooperation and viewed it as a useful means of 
expanding trade, it has also stressed that industrial cooper¬ 
ation must have a valid economi c/conrme r c i a 1 basis and must be 
treated as only one of several types of economic interchange. 

Although the United States, because of its economic/legal 
system and business/government relationship, cannot commit its 
firms to undertake specific industrial cooperation arrangements, 
considerable progress has been made in compliance with those 
portions of the Final Act which call for encouraging East-West 
industrial cooperation projects. Recognizing the essentially 
private nature of industrial cooperation arrangements and bear¬ 
ing in mind that such transactions must be commercially justifi¬ 
able, the U.S. Government has, since Helsinki, taken a number of 
steps to make American firms more aware of business coopera¬ 
tion opportunities in the CMEA nations. These have included: 
concluding intergovernmental agreements, assisting the joint 
commissions and councils, and publishing business guides. Over 
the past few years, more than 30 industrial cooperation arrange¬ 
ments have been negotiated between American companies and their 
CMEA partners. 

Detailed below are a sampling of the programs the U.S. 
Government has undertaken to create a positive framework for 
these investments and to provide assistance for businessmen 
contemplating industrial cooperation arrangements in the CMEA 
states: 


31. A table describing a representative sampling of these 
arrangements is in Appendix VI, Chart 1. 


208 





Intergovernmental Agreements 

The U.S. has concluded several bilateral agreements 
designed to facilitate and encourage industrial cooperation. 

In November of 1976 the U.S. and Romanian governments 
signed a 10-year, Long-Term Agreement on Economic, Industrial 
and Technical Cooperation. This Agreement provides an extended 
framework for developing economic and industrial cooperation 
activities. It formalizes and sets forth the rules of the game 
for the U.S. business community and provides protection against 
both expropriation and impairment of contractual rights. An 
annex to the Agreement is designed to facilitate the 
establishment of U.S.-Romanian joint ventures and other forms 
of business cooperation. 

The U.S. also signed a Small Business Agreement in November 
of 1978 with Poland which provides the framework for addressing 
problems experienced by small and medium sized companies wishing 
to engage in bilateral trade. This Agreement, which was signed 
at a meeting of the joint American-Po1ish Trade Commission, 
is specifically designed to promote and ease cooperation between 
small and medium sized firms in both countries. 

The U.S.-Hungarian Trade Agreement of 1978, in addition 
to extending most-favored-nation treatment to Hungary, contains 
features which improve business and other conditions for U.S. 
firms cooperating with Hungarian enterprises. 

A significant forum for the expansion of industrial cooper¬ 
ation between the U.S. and Soviet Union was provided by the 
U.S.-USSR Long-Term Agreement for Economic, Industrial and Tech¬ 
nical Cooperation signed in June of 1974. Since Helsinki, annual 
meetings of experts have been held to exchange economic data 
and forecasts in areas which have included industry, foreign 
trade, and agriculture. In addition, specialized seminars have 
examined specific aspects of U.S.-Soviet economic cooperation. 

In December of 1975, the "Joint Seminar on the Organizational 
and Legal Aspects of U.S.-USSR Trade" was held under Article 
III of the Long Term Agreement. Both delegations presented 
and analyzed industrial cooperation, credit and finance, and 
other questions related to common ventures. In 1977 and again 
in 1978, two seminars on marketing in the U.S. and the USSR 
were held under the aegis of the Long-Term Agreement. 

The U.S. has also concluded, since Helsinki, double 
taxation treaties with Hungary and Poland. These agreements 
are generally considered to have improved the investment climate 
for prospective U.S. partners in industrial cooperation 
ar r an gement s. 


209 


Commission and Councils 


The official joint commissions between the U.S. and four 
East European nations have also been instrumental in promoting 
conditions for industrial cooperation, primarily by serving as 
a clearinghouse for information on industrial cooperation 
projects. The Soviet and Polish Commissions, for example, have 
prepared specific lists of potentially fruitful sectors for 
industrial cooperation projects which the U.S. Department of 
Commerce received and subsequently publicized and disseminated 
among the American business community. The U.S.-Polish Commis¬ 
sion has discussed possible cooperation in third countries and 
has established a special working group on industrial coopera¬ 
tion. The Commissions have also provided a forum for detailed 
discussions of projects already negotiated (U.S.-USSR) and of 
regulations and conditions for joint ventures in respective 
countries (U.S.-Romania). Government-to-government arrangements 
which facilitate cooperation have been another important item 
on the agenda of most of the Commissions. 

The quasi-officia 1 business councils have played an added 
role in furthering the goal of increased industrial cooperation. 
Discussions of extended cooperation efforts have, in various 
ways, become a regular feature of the U.S.-USSR Council session. 
Seminars on industrial cooperation prospects in Czechoslovakia, 
Poland and Hungary have been organized within the framework 
of the Councils and the Czechos1ovakia-U.S. Economic Council 
has formed a working group on industrial cooperation. 

U.S. Government Publications 

The U.S. Department of Commerce, since the signing of the 
Final Act, has published several studies concerning East-West 
industrial cooperation, including: 

-- "Joint Venture Agreements in Romania," a 97-page 
comprehensive study and practical guide for American businessmen 
contemplating joint ventures with Romanian enterprises. 

-- "American-Soviet Trade," an 118-page compendium of the 
presentation made at the "Joint Seminar on Organizational and 
Legal Aspects of U.S.-USSR Trade." 

-- "East-West Counter-trade Practices," a general guide 
for U-S. businessmen considering counter-trade arrangements 
in Eastern Europe. 

-- "East-West Trade Financing," a 25-page introductory 
guide. 

-- "Working On-site in Eastern Europe and the Soviet 
Union," a 29-page guide for those companies planning to send 
resident businessmen to the USSR and Eastern Europe. 

Within the multilateral ECE forum, U.S. participants have 
encouraged the various studies the ECE Secretariat has 


210 


undertaken concerning the "Promotion of Trade Through Industrial 
Cooperation." At a recent ECE Trade Committee meeting, the U.S. 
delegate proposed a further large-scale study, presently being 
written, of current counter-trade policies and practices in 
ECE member states. 

Projects of Common Interest 


Although some projects of common interest to the United 
States and the Eastern countries are progressing in various 
stages of implementation or negotiation, activity in these areas 
since August of 1975 appears to be on a downward trend. 

The past four years have not seen economic conditions in 
either the Eastern countries or the U.S. which have been partic¬ 
ularly favorable for undertaking such projects. Political 
factors have also affected both the trading atmosphere and the 
possibilities for increased government-backed credits. The 
U.S. Government has continued, however, to support existing 
cooperation projects and to lend assistance to U.S. companies 
where appropriate and useful. 

Specific Projects 

As the Final Act suggests, most of the projects of common 
interest concluded between U.S. firms and the CMEA signatory 
states have been in the areas of energy resources and transpor¬ 
tation. As some examples of these projects, A.I.L., a subsidiary 
of Cutler-Hammer, is installing a complete air traffic control 
system covering the three major cities in Bulgaria and has pro¬ 
vided a smaller one for the Prague area in Czechoslovakia. 

Island Creek Coal Company, a subsidiary of Occidental 
Petroleum Corporation, has concluded a long-term purchase 
agreement with the government of Romania for the supply of up 
to 27.3 million tons of high-grade metallurgical coal over the 
next 40 years. The coal, which will be supplied to the 
Romanians by Island Creek from a mine now under development 
in we stern Virginia, is valued at 840 million dollars and will 
be used to supply Romania's expanding steel industry. First 
deliveries are expected at the end of 1979. The new mine's 
total output is estimated at between 43 and 50 million tons, 

14 million tons of which the Romanians are buying at cost and 
on which Romania is making an advance payment of 5.3 million 
dollars. The Romanians also have an option to buy an additional 
13.3 million tons, with the remainder of the coal to be sold 
by Is1 and Creek. 

American firms have discussed a number of major projects 
of common interest with the Soviet Union. Only two major com¬ 
pensation projects, however, are in progress at the present 
time and both of these pre-date Helsinki: Occidental Petroleum 


211 



fertilizer agreement under which two-way shipments of fertil¬ 
izers would begin shortly and the Yakutsk liquefied natural 
gas project for which reserves are currently being confirmed 
in the USSR. 

In 1973, Occidental Petro1eum Corporation and the Soviet 
Union signed a general agreement which provided for the estab¬ 
lishment of a complex in the USSR for production of ammonia 
and urea. The agreement also called for long-term purchases 
by Occidental of Soviet ammonia, urea and potash, and for long¬ 
term exports by Occidental to the USSR of superphosphoric acid. 

A 180 million dollar Eximbank loan was obtained in support of 
the sale of the two ammonia plants, which were constructed in 
the USSR by Chemical Construction Corporation. The two-way 
shipments of fertilizer may amount to as much as 20 billion 
dollars over a 20-year period, with the first deliveries already 
comp 1eted. 

Since 1972, a consortia of American firms have been 
discussing two large liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects with 
the Soviet Union. Each project would involve development of 
natural gas resources in the USSR and shipment of LNG to the 
United States, thus requiring Federal Power Commission 
approval. The USSR is currently confirming gas reserves for 
the Yakutsk LNG project, a Soviet-0apanese-American undertaking; 
the three parties are carrying out on-going discussions concern¬ 
ing the development phase of the project to determine its feas¬ 
ibility. The North Star LNG project is currently in abeyance, 
but there is some chance that it might be included in future 
Soviet economic development plans. Also postponed is a plan 
to develop the large reserves of copper ore at Udokan. 

Projects of common interest in the fields of electrical 
generation and transmission and in surface transportation offer 
great potential for the nearby states of Western Europe, but 
U.S. officials are unaware of any major new initiatives in these 
fields since Helsinki. 

PROVISIONS CONCERNING TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION 


This section of Basket II concerns the more technical 
aspects of international trade and recommends that the 3 5 
signatory states take steps to encourage: (1) international 
cooperation in the harmonization of standards and regulations; 
(2) the inclusion of arbitration clauses in contracts and 
agreements; and (3) the conclusion of specific bilateral 
arrangements concerning specific mutual trade problems. 

Harmonization of Standards 


Since 1970, the U.S. has participated in ECE-initiated 
meetings of Government Officials Responsible for Standardization 


212 




Policies. These biennial meetings and intersessiona1 experts' 
meetings are aimed at promoting the use of international stan¬ 
dards and harmonization of national standards. As a result 
of these meetings, lists have been developed of products which 
should receive priority treatment from international standard¬ 
writing organizations. In addition, rosters of central govern¬ 
ment bodies having authority to prescribe mandatory regulations 
governing quality, performance, safety, dimensions, and other 
characteristics of various products have been compiled. The 
Fifth Meeting of Government Officials Responsible for Standard¬ 
ization Policies, held June 9-13, 1978, adopted a new and ex¬ 

panded program of work toward harmonizing of standards. 

The United States has also consistently supported efforts 
to negotiate an international standards code in the Multilateral 
Trade Negotiations conducted under the auspices of GATT. 

Specific Bilateral Arrangements 

The U.S. Government has concluded numerous bilateral agree¬ 
ments with the various signatory states on a variety of trade- 
related issues, the bulk of which are reviewed throughout this 
Basket II section. The provisions of this specific section 
refer, however, to agreements in the areas of double taxation 
and the transfer of profits and return of invested assets. 

Double taxation agreements have, in fact, been concluded with 
Poland in 1979 and with Hungary in 1978. Previous agreements 
with Romania and the Soviet Union, both signed in 1973, are 
still in effect for the period since August of 1975. As to 
bilateral arrangements regarding the transfer of profits and 
the return of assets, both the 1975 U.S.-Romanian Trade Agree¬ 
ment and the 1978 U.S.-Hungarian Agreement in Trade Regulations 
contain provisions regarding these questions, as does the U.S.- 
Romanian Long-Term Agreement in Economic, Industrial and Techno¬ 
logical Cooperation. 


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 


Highlighting the important contribution that cooperation 
in the fields of science and technology can make "to the 
strengthening of security and cooperation among" states, Basket 
II of the Final Act details the forms, methods and fields of 
cooperative efforts that should be expanded. While recognizing 
that potential partners must themselves determine the feasi¬ 
bility of specific cooperative projects, the Final Act also 
outlines the kinds of measures governments and organizations 
should take to facilitate such cooperation. These measures 
include: the improvement of opportunities for information 
exchanges, the expansion of organizational structures such as 
conferences and visits, the wider use of commercial channels 
for research, and the utilization of bilateral and multilateral 
agreements and organizations to further the aforementioned 


213 




aims. Fourteen areas are specifically mentioned as examples 
of subjects which could be fruitfully explored through expanded 
cooperative projects in order to assist in "the effective solu¬ 
tion of problems of common interest and the improvement of the 
conditions of human life." 

As a country with a large and active community of scien¬ 
tists, the United States has always maintained a particular 
interest in expanding international scientific and technological 
cooperation and has sought to increase the scope of interna¬ 
tional activity and direct contacts among the world scientific 
establishment. As a result, a considerable number of positive 
steps have been taken by the United States within these specific 
fields and methods of cooperation. For example, there are at 
present over 60 scientific and technical agreements in effect 
between the United States and the countries of Eastern Europe 
and the Soviet Union, many of which were negotiated after the 
signing of the Final Act. Activities encouraged under those 
agreements signed before Helsinki have, in many cases, increased 
in frequency, quality, and scope over the past four years. As 
one example, over twice as many Soviet and American scientists 
participated in exchange programs under the auspices of the 
eleven scientific and technical agreements signed with the 
Soviet Union from 1975 through 1978 as participated from 1972 
through 1974. Close to 10,000 Soviet and American scientists 
have participated in the six years that these agreements have 
been in effect and about 300 cooperative projects have been 
operating annually. Similar advances have taken place in offi¬ 
cial bilateral exchanges with certain of the East European 
states. There has also been a corresponding increase in the 
work of and U.S. participation in multilateral facilitation 
of scientific exchanges and cooperative research, particularly 
within the ECE. 

Much of this increase would have taken place had there 
been no Final Act since the U.S. Government recognizes that 
in today's world mutually shared problems require mutually 
shared solutions. The Final Act has, however, provided a 
detailed framework and added impetus for overcoming many of 
the obstacles which may hamper cooperative efforts in these 
areas. 

Fields of Cooperation 


Individual departments within the U.S. Government have 
been involved in the funding and organization, in their respec¬ 
tive areas of expertise, of the 14 technical fields ennumerated 
in the Final Act. The following is a summary of some of these 
initiatives in selected areas. It is by no means a comprehen¬ 
sive listing of all the activities initiated by the U.S. public 
and private sectors, but it highlights the major government-to- 
government and noteworthy private activities which have taken 


214 



place between the U.S. and the signatory states of the East 
as well as the most important multilateral activities in which 
the U.S. Government has been involved. 

Agriculture 

Joint cooperative projects in the field of agriculture 
should, as suggested in the Final Act, be encouraged in the 
specific areas of improving the productivity of crop cultiva¬ 
tion, the application of chemistry to agriculture, the design 
and use of agricultural machinery, and the technologies of irri¬ 
gation. These and other topics have formed the specifics of 
U.S. cooperative agricultural arrangements initiated with all 
the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and nego¬ 
tiated and implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Bilateral Cooperation 


Bulgaria 

In April of 1979, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
initiated an agency-to-agency Joint Statement on Development 
of Agricultural Trade with its counterpart body in Bulgaria. 
Prior to the signing, the Department of Agriculture participated 
in Joint Council meetings in both countries and hosted several 
official visits to farms and agro-business industries in the 
United States. The Department also participates in those joint 
agricultural activities called for in the science, educational 
and technological agreements between the two governments. 

The Joint Statement on Development of Agricultural Trade 
is expected to facilitate cooperation and expansion of commer¬ 
cial agricultural relations and research in the areas called 
for in the Final Act. These include the exchange of germ plasm 
and breeding materials, exchanges of agricultural specialists 
and trainees, and the exchange of agricultural and statistical 
information. Team exchanges will be expanded under this new 
mechanism, as wi11 the development of joint projects. 

Czecho s1ovakia 


There is no official government-to-government protocol 
on scientific cooperation with Czechoslovakia. However, 
initiatives to explore technology exchanges have been taken 
recently by representatives of the agricultural community. In 
April-May of 1978, a U.S. market development team (cooperators) 
visited Czechoslovakia and held discussions with the Minister 
of Agriculture. The team expressed an interest in dairy improve¬ 
ment programs, soybean meal and corn imports, organization of 
livestock production seminars, and exchanges of scientists and 
students from respective universities and institutions. 

32. A Summary of U.S. Cooperative Activities in Science and 
Technology appears in Appendix VI, Chart 2. 


215 





In the summer of 1978, the U.S. side also proposed holding 
seminars on livestock breeding and feeding with the participa¬ 
tion of several U.S.-FAS cooperators in Czechoslovakia. The 
seminars were held in June of 1979. 

Activity continued in the fall of 1978 when the U.S. 
National Renderers Association visited Prague to discuss and 
review possible exchange proposals. The U.S. Feed Grain Council 
has expressed a continued interest in lending its technical 
expertise for projects of mutual concern. 

GDR 


Agreements between U.S. bodies and the GDR in science and 
technology include an exchange agreement between the Interna¬ 
tional Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) and the GDR National 
Academy of Sciences and one between the U.S. National Academy 
of Sciences and the same GDR body. The agreements provide for 
the exchange of U.S. and GDR scientists and scholars to lecture 
and conduct seminars and research. Among other technical 
exchanges was a highly successful seminar conducted by U.S. 
Department of Agricultural -- affiliated cooperator organiza¬ 
tions at the GDR's "AGRA" agricultural demonstration fair near 
Leipzig in June of 1979. 


Hunga r y 

In 1976, Hungary and the U.S. first exchanged letters on 
the initiation of agricultural cooperation between the two 
countries. 

Subsequently, an Agreement on Cooperation in Culture, 
Education, Science and Technology was signed in April of 1977. 
The agreement was created to facilitate exchanges and coopera¬ 
tion in the fields of art, culture, education, the humanities, 
literature, social sciences, and pure and applied sciences by 
encouraging the relevant agencies and institutions of the two 
countries to establish direct contacts with each other. As a 
result of the agreement, exchanges of agricultural scientists 
were initiated -- the first of which the U.S. side hosted in 
1 977. 


The USDA and the Hungarian Ministry of Food and Agriculture 
also began direct negotiations at the initiative of the Hungar¬ 
ians. As a result, a Joint Statement on the Development of 
Agricultural Trade and Cooperation was signed in May of 1979. 

The Statement calls for the mutual promotion of trade, informa¬ 
tion exchanges and cooperation in agricultural science, tech¬ 
nology and education. 


216 




Existing independently of this arrangement is an agreement 
with the 4-H Youth Program to develop exchanges between the 
two sides. Additionally, there have been technical exchanges 
and seminars between USDA Cooperators and the Hungarian Ministry 
of Agriculture. 

In July of 1978, the U.S.-Hungarian Trade Agreement entered 
into force. As part of the agreement, a Working Group on Agri¬ 
cultural Trade was formed and met for the first time in Budapest 
in March of 1979. 


Po1 and 


The U.S. has been involved in a long, mutually advanta¬ 
geous, active research program with Poland for over a decade. 
Topics of cooperation have included plant science studies, 
insecticides and soils, nitrogen fixation, entimology and 
forestry. 

From 1960 until 1974 cooperation was based on a special 
Foreign Currency Research Program, i.e. research was funded 
by excess U.S.-owned Polish currency resulting from the sales 
of U.S. agricultural commodities in Poland. 

In 1974, on the basis of the U.S.-Polish Agreement on Fund¬ 
ing Cooperation in Science and Technology, a joint fund was set 
up to support further cooperative activities, to which each 
side contributed approximately 538 million zlotys (approxi¬ 
mately 30 million dollars). A U.S.-Polish Joint Board was 
formed to administer the program. The Board meets annually 
and held its most recent meeting in April of 1979 in Warsaw. 

As of September 30, 1978, USDA was working on 62 active 
research projects in Poland which cost 9,828,946 dollars. 

Out of this number, 30 are Joint Board projects approved since 
1974. In addition, USDA has obligated funds for seven addi¬ 
tional proposals totaling 753,337 dollars which are pending 
approval by the U.S.-Polish Joint Board. An additional 36 
research proposals totaling approximately five million dollars 
are being revised, negotiated or prepared. It is anticipated 
that these can be funded during Fiscal Year 1979 and Fiscal 
Year 1980 by the Joint Board utilizing the remaining Polish- 
owned zlotys. 

A total of 35 Polish scientists participated from 1974-1978 
in the Foreign Research Associate Program of the Science and 
Education Administration (SEA) of the Department of Agricul¬ 
ture. The program allows foreign scientists to participate 
in on-going research work and to use the facilities of SEA at 
no cost if their other expenses are covered by a sponsor. 

There has been an active exchange of young agricultural 


217 



experts and specialists within the framework of the 4-H Youth 
Program. This program allows participants to observe and study 
the practical application of agricultural technology and to 
promote cross-cultural understanding between the people of the 
U.S. and Poland. Since 1975 approximately 400 young people 
have participated in the program. 

Initiatives have also been taken to facilitate direct agri¬ 
cultural contacts between U.S. and Polish universities. In 
1976, for example, Iowa State University and the Warsaw Agricul¬ 
tural University established a faculty exchange program. 

In addition, a Joint Statement on the Development of Agri¬ 
cultural Trade, signed in October of 1974 with Poland, is still 
in effect. The Statement calls for the formation of a Working 
Group on Agricultural Trade which meets no less than once a 
year. The last Working Group meeting took place in Warsaw in 
May of 1979. Among the Group's activities are exchanges of 
economic information, consultations on the state of agricultural 
trade and credit facilities, and problems of scientific techni¬ 
cal cooperation. Technical exchanges and joint agricultural 
trade promotion projects have also increased since the Statement 
was signed. 


Roman i a 


Agricultural cooperation with Romania was somewhat limited 
in 1975-76 but accelerated with the signing of the Protocols 
on Development of Agricultural Trade and Cooperation in Agricul¬ 
ture between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Ministry 
of Agriculture and Food Industry of Romania. The Protocols 
provide for the exchange of agricultural economic information 
on a regular basis, including stocks and forward estimates on 
supply and demand and trade in major agricultural commodities; 
cooperation on the basis of mutual advantage in the fields of 
plant, animal and soil sciences and mechanization, including 
exchanges of germ plasm; and cooperation in methods for the 
application of agricultural chemicals and use of mathematical 
models in agriculture. The Protocols also call for facili¬ 
tating direct contacts between governmental organizations, 
research institutes, universities, firms, enterprises, and 
individuals, as well as of the exchange of material and infor¬ 
mation and the organization of symposia and conferences. 

There have been some problems with Romania's implementation 
of the Protocol in the area of information exchange, but 
progress was made in 1978, and a U.S. request for expanding 
available data is being considered. 

University exchange programs were initiated at the end 
of 1976 between the Romanian Academy of Agriculture and Forestry 
Sciences and Iowa State University and the University of 


218 



Nebraska. Based on two, two-year Memoranda of Understanding, 
exchanges have taken place in the areas of plant breeding, 
animal science and swine research. In 1977, one Romanian parti¬ 
cipated in the Iowa University program and in 1978, two special¬ 
ists from each side took part in the Nebraska exchange. Other 
U.S. universities have, in the meantime, expressed an interest 
in arranging similar exchanges. 

An active and successful farm training program has been 
in effect since 1972 under the sponsorship of the International 
Farmer Association for Education in Berkeley, California. The 
program offers participants direct farm experience, university 
instruction and opportunities to meet with specialists from 
universities, experiment stations and extension services. From 
1972-1977, 225 Romanian farm specialists participated in the 
program; in 1978, 59 Romanian specialists took part; and recent¬ 
ly, the Romanians have indicated that they would like to 
increase the program to 60-70 specialists annually. 

The Future Farmers of America have also started an explora¬ 
tory exchange of experts on vocational education in agriculture 
with the Romanian Ministry of Agriculture. In addition, the 
International Research Exchange Board (IREX) provides assistance 
to Romanian scientists for three-month agricultural programs, 
and the Fu1bright-Hays scholarships offer annual grants to four 
Romanian agricultural scientists for three-month studies in 
the U.S. 


USSR 

Cooperative agricultural ventures between the United States 
and the Soviet Union have been notably facilitated by the Agree¬ 
ment on Cooperation in Agriculture, signed by representatives of 
both governments, in Washington on June 19, 1973, and extended 

in June of 1978 for an additional five years. Under the terms 
of the Agreement, a Joint Committee was formed and split into 
one Joint Working Group on Agricultural Research and Techno¬ 
logical Development and one on Agricultural Economic Research 
and Information. Cooperation has included the exchange of 
scientific information, publications and scientists, and the 
organization of joint research projects, seminars and symposia. 

Joint Working group on Agricultural Research and 
Technological Development: 1973-1978 

Plant Science 

Considerable exchanges of seed samples and agricultural 
plants have been carried out during this period. From 1974- 
1977, both sides introduced over 5,000 samples of.plants which 


219 



will be used for developing new varieties and should be of great 
interest for genetic, biochemical phytopat ho 1ogical research. 
Positive results were also achieved in work on problems of 
genetic engineering, grain quality, immunity, and winter hardi¬ 
ness of cereals. Wide-ranging cooperation took place in the 
fields of breeding and the growing of soybean and sunflowers. 

In 1978, the U.S. received five Soviet teams and the U.S. 
sent two delegations to study recent achievements in molecular 
biology, genetics and methods of breeding, and cotton pest and 
disease control. During the first five years of the Agreement, 
2,029 Soviet publications on introduction of agricultural plants 
were sent to the U.S. and 1,534 pieces of American literature 
were sent to the USSR. 


Soil Science 

Effective bilateral programs have been implemented in the 
areas of the theory and control of wind erosion of soil; the 
study of water, gas and salt movements in soil; the utilization 
of saline soils, and mathematical models for predicting wind 
erosion. 

A delegation of Soviet scientists was sent to the U.S. in 
1979 to discuss their research results, to exchange data, and 
to participate in the American Soil Science Society Meeting 
at Fort Collins, Colorado. Both sides agreed to convene a 
symposium in Leningrad in 1980 on heat exchange in soil. 

Animal and Veterinary Services 

Cooperation has taken place in the fields of animal hus¬ 
bandry, veterinary sciences and animal waste utilization on 
large farms. The program has been developing satisfactory, 
and the exchange of publications has generally been more 
complete than in the past. 

Meehanization 

Numerous teams have been exchanged as part of a joint pro¬ 
gram for the development of mutually acceptable standards and 
methods of testing of agricultural machinery. Soviet "study 
of experience" teams were sent to the United States to study 
the management of agricultural science, the mechanization of 
apples, technical servicing of machines and tractors, and water 
erosion control; U.S. teams were sent to the Soviet Union to 
study sheep breeding, management of agricultural science, and 
the technology of growing sugarbeets. 


220 


Joint Working Group on Agricultural 
Economic Research and Information: 1973-1978 

On 1y limited progress has been made in the area of joint « 
research and the exchange of economic and statistical informa¬ 
tion: data exchanges on agricultural production in the U.S. and 
USSR and the inter-library book exchange were expanded and 
cooperative programs were reviewed and implemented in four 
project areas. 


Agribusiness Project 

This project is the most active of the four, focusing on 
the major directions and organizational schemes of agro-indus¬ 
trial integration. Both sides have agreed to hold a seminar on 
the topic in the Soviet Union in 1980. In addition, a Protocol 
on Scientific and Technological Cooperation in the Field of 
Application of Computers to Agriculture was signed in March of 
1 978. 


Forecasting Project 

Soviet delegations have been able, under this project, 
to study U.S. methods of forecasting production and demand 
of agricultural commodities and the organization of the Statis¬ 
tical Report Service. 

Agricultural Economic Information Exchange Project 

This project has led to the promotion of a a systematic 
exchange of agricultural economic and statistical materials 
and has encouraged periodic discussions on the outlook for agri¬ 
cultural production and trade, livestock and feed utilization. 
U.S. teams have been studying crop production, storage, process¬ 
ing and livestock and feed utilization, while Soviet teams have 
been interested in capital investment and in location and 
specialization of agricultural production. 

In 1978, both sides expressed their satisfaction with the 
exchange of scheduled data; however, the U.S. side noted that 
additional requests were not met in full and expressed the 
desire to improve and expand the exchange of information by 
including forward estimates of production and trade of agricul¬ 
tural commodities. 


Inter-Library Exchange 

The exchange of books under this project has doubled since 
1973. In 1978, a total of 276 titles (1,160 pieces) were 
received by the U.S., and the USSR received 1,670 pieces of 
USDA and non-USDA publications. 

Forestry Activities 

The USDA has, in addition, participated in several forestry 
exchanges under the Environmental Protection Agreement, and 


Forestry Activities 


The USDA has, in addition, participated in several forestry 
exchanges under the Environmental Protection Agreement, and 
the Agreement for Cooperation in the Fields of Science and Tech¬ 
nology. Under the forestry working group of the latter agree¬ 
ment, five active projects are pending in the fields of fire, 
insect and diseases, biogeocenosis, harvesting, and reforesta¬ 
tion. Under the Environmental Protection Agreement, USDA Forest 
Service scientists have participated in projects on biosphere 
reserves, on the interactions between forests, plants and pollu¬ 
tion, and on the structure, function, and productivity of the 
taiga and tundra ecosystems. 

Multilateral Cooperation 

Cooperation between private and agricultural trade associa¬ 
tions of the U.S. and respective Soviet organizations has also 
expanded during this period. Groups of young experts have been 
exchanged under the 4-H Council Program in order to gain scien¬ 
tific and practical experience in both countries. Between 1974 
and 1977, approximately 500 scientists and specialists partici¬ 
pated in these exchanges under an agreement of cooperation. 

International Institute for Applied Systems 
Analysis (IIASA), Austria 

IIASA, a non-governmental, multi-disciplinary international 
research institution, was founded in October of 1972 by the 
academies of sciences and equivalent scientific organizations 
of 12 nations from both East and West. Its goal is to bring 
together scientists from around the world to work on scientific 
and technological problems of common interest. 

USDA's Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service (ESCS) 
has developed close liaison and expanding cooperative relations 
with IIASA. Both groups share similar interests in global model¬ 
ing activities and economists from ESCS have visited IIASA on 
several occasions to exchange information and technical advice. 

Organization for Economic Coo p eration and Development (OECD) 

In May of 1978, ESCS analysts participated in the OECD's 
agricultural subcommittee meeting which reviewed the development 
of indicators of rural social and economic well-being. 

Energy, New Technologies, Rational Use of Resources 

The importance of cooperation in the field of energy is 
underscored in several Basket II provisions which place 
particular importance on cooperation in research for new sources 
of energy and new technologies to reduce energy consumption. 


222 






The United States Government, through the Department of 
Energy (COE), has actively pursued the furtherance of these 
goals in the energy-related activities of the U.N. Economic 
Commission for Europe (ECE) and through separate bilateral 
agreements on energy cooperation with both Poland and the Soviet 
Union. 

Bilateral Cooperation 


Poland 


Energy cooperation with Poland takes place under a 1974 
Coal Research Agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The 
general areas of cooperation covered by the agreement and, 
following its creation, with the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE), includes: coal extraction and utilization, including 
coal 1iquefication and gasification; automated longwall mining; 
coking methods; and magnetohydrodynamics. The Coal Research 
Agreement has lead to specific cooperative projects in coal- 
related research, the costs of which are shared equally by the 
two partners (total U.S. funding has amounted to 10 million 
dollars in excess Polish currency). 

One important project under these agreements is the "Coal 
Combustion and Gasification for Magnethydrodynamics Method of 
Power Generation." The original thrust of this project was to 
use the exhaust gases from a MHD (magnetohydrodynamics) genera¬ 
tor for the chemical regeneration of coals, but efforts have 
since focused on joint coal combustor development while continu¬ 
ing, but de-emphasizing, coal gasification activities. 

During President Carter's December of 1977 visit to Poland, 
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Polish Foreign Minister Emil 
Wojtaszek agreed to conduct a high-level review of the 1974 
Agreement to explore possibilities of expanding the joint 
studies covered under it. Follow up discussions took place 
in March of 1978 between the Deputy Minister of the Polish 
Ministry of Mining, Dr. Glanowski, and DOE officials. The U.S. 
expressed its concern that it had not yet received certain 
information called for under the existing Agreement. U.S. 
officials noted that, while the U.S. maintained a strong 
interest in pending cooperative arrangements, any proposed 
future activities would have to prove beneficial to the techni¬ 
cal programs of both countries. 

USSR 

Energy cooperation with the USSR is governed by two 
government-to-government agreements, one outlining cooperative 
efforts in the field of energy, and the other involving atomic 
energy cooperation: 


223 




a. U.S.-USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Energy 

The U.S.-USSR Agreement on Energy, signed by then President 
Nixon and Presidium Cha i rman Podgorny on June 28, 1974, remained 

in force until June of 1979, when it was renewed for another 
three years plus two more if neither side notifies the other 
30 days before June of 1982 that it does not wish the Agreement 
to continue. 

The main objectives of the Agreement are to use the 
scientific and technical potential of the United States and 
the Soviet Union to accelerate, by cooperative efforts, research 
and development in the areas of existing and alternative sources 
of energy as well as to increase effectiveness in the use of 
energy and its conservation, and to achieve a better mutual 
understanding of each country's national energy programs and 
outlook. 

There are currently 14 joint projects under the Energy 
Agreement, most of which involve periodic meetings and exchanges 
of information and statistics. The Department of Energy has 
lead responsibility for 10 of them. They include Heat Rejection 
Systems; Oil Technology; Gas Technology; Coal Technology; Solar 
Technology; Geothermal Technology; Energy Information and Fore¬ 
casting; MHD (Magnetohydro-dynamics, a process involving the 
direct generation of electricity from combustion -- a field 
in which the Soviet Union is highly advanced; Superconducting 
Transmission; and Ultra-High Voltage Transmission. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has lead responsi¬ 
bility for three projects. They include Thermal Power Stations; 
Electric Power Stations; and Air Pollution Reduction. 

The Department of Interior has lead responsibility for 
the Hydropower project and the Army Corps of Engineers has lead 
responsibility for the Hydropower sub-project on Cold Weather 
Construction Techniques. 

b. U.S.-USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the Peaceful 

Uses of Atomic Energy. 

This bilateral Agreement on Atomic Energy was signed by 
President Nixon and General Secretary Brezhnev on June 21, 1973, 

for a period of 10 years. It provides for cooperation in three 
major areas: Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion, Fast Breeder 
Reactors and Research in Fundamental Properties of Matter. 
Working Groups have been established in each of these areas. 
Cooperative efforts in the areas of nuclear spent fuel storage, 
thermionic energy conversion and light water reactor safety 
are just getting under way. 


224 


Multilateral Cooperation 

Recognizing the increasing importance of the energy problem 
in today's world and the fact that its member nations consume 
close to 80 percent of the world's energy supply, the U.N. 
Economic Commission for Europe has been devoting an increasing 
proportion of its time and resources to the problems of energy 
supply, demand and cooperation. The U.S. has been an active 
participant in these discussions which have taken place largely 
within the three energy-related bodies of the ECE. 

Coal Corrmi t tee 

The Coal Committee concentrates on studies of the future 
role of coal and methods of increasing current coal production 
and utilization. The U.S. has participated in the activities 
of the Annual Coal Committee, and the group of Experts on Coal 
Statistics and Coal Trade. In addition, DOE's staff has parti¬ 
cipated in study tours of the coal operations in several ECE 
countries, including a study tour of Coal Facilities in the 
FRG in September of 1978. The DOE assists in providing statis¬ 
tics published by the U.N./ECE and is currently recommending 
the computerization of the coal statistics data base to expedite 
publication of these reports. 

In addition to scheduled meetings of the Coal Committee 
and its group of experts, the Committee has initiated a number 
of specialized seminars and symposia on specific topics to 
encourage a discussion among ECE countries on coal-related tech¬ 
nology and information. The Symposium on Coal Liquefaction and 
Gasification met on April 23, 1979, in Katowice, Poland, to 
which the U.S. provided a rapporteur for one of the specialized 
sessions and a number of technical papers on coal gasification 
techno 1ogy. 


Gas Commi11 ee 

The Gas Committee was established in 1963 to analyze the 
natural gas market situation, its long-term trends and the 
potential problems involved in integrating the flow of natural 
gas within the current energy system. The Committee's world 
program includes an economic analysis of the gas situation and 
its short and long-term prospects; the economic and technologi¬ 
cal aspects of the use of gas by various branches of industry; 
and the transport, storage and environmental aspects of gas 
cons ump tion. 


Electric Power Committee 


The Committee on Electric Power was established in 1947 
to eliminate power shortages and bottlenecks in the generation 
and transmission of electricity and to publish a periodical 


223 





report on electric power statistics. The current focus of the 
Electric Power Committee is the effective utilization of elec¬ 
tric power through the interconnection of national power systems 
and the reduction of problems associated with the interchange 
of electricity within different power systems. The U.S. con¬ 
tinues to follow with interest the activities of this Power 
Committee. Although currently financial constraints preclude 
participation in the C orrm i 11 e e , s activities, it is anticipated 
that the U.S. will become more intensively involved in the near 
future. 


Transport Technology 

(See the Development of Transport Section for a detailed 
discussion of cooperative efforts in the field of transporta¬ 
tion). 


Physics and Chemistry 

Cooperative research projects in specific areas of physics 
and chemistry are also called for in the Final Act; those areas 
include high energy and nuclear physics, electrochemistry and 
the chemistry of polymers, and the practical application of 
chemistry to differing economic sectors. 


Several agreements, all signed prior to the Final Act but 
mandating programs which are continuing through the period under 
discussion, have been negotiated by the United States to encour¬ 
age greater scientific cooperation in these specific areas. 

With Hungary, for example, an Agreement on Cooperation in Cul¬ 
ture, Education, Science and Technology mandates that the U.S. 
and Hungarian governments encourage exchanges and joint 
activities in the fields of pure and applied sciences. Current 
joint programs include subjects such as ion-imp 1antation in 
semi-conductors, cationic copo1ymerization and Mosbauer 
spectroscopy of passive films. 

A similar Agreement, signed in 1974, is in force between 
the U.S. and Romanian governments and has led to projects in 
areas such as the transformation of carotenoids and atomic and 
molecular physics. 


Under the U.S.-Polish Agreement on Funding of Cooperation 
in Science and Technology, cooperative projects have been 
approved by the Agreement's Joint Board in areas which include 
reactions of carbonions, crystallization of polymers, mathe¬ 
matical physics, ribonucleic acids and the study of close binary 
s y s t ems . 


U.S. scientific cooperation with the USSR takes place under 
the bilateral Agreement on Scientific and Technical Cooperation, 
renewed in July of 1977, for an additional five years. Two 


226 


working groups formed as a result of the Agreement, one to 
encourage research in chemi cal catalysis and the other in 
physics, have been developing programs for numerous specific 
proj ects. 


Meteorology and Hydrology 



Cooperative research in the areas of hydrology and meteor- 
°l°gy, particularly in the collection of data and their use 
for weather and hydrology forecasting, is another example con¬ 
tained in this section of the types of joint projects the CSCE 
states should be encouraging. 

Most international cooperative work in these fields is 
taking place within various multilateral forums. Nevertheless, 
the United States is also actively involved in bilateral 
research projects in these areas, principally with the Soviet 
Union. The Working Group on Water Resources, one of several 
groups formed under the U.S/USSR Agreement for Cooperation in 
the Fields of Science and Technology, signed in 1972 and renewed 
in 1977, has been working on projects which include plastics 
in hydrotechnica1 construction, planning utilization and 
management of water resources and methods and means of automa¬ 
tion and remote control in water resource systems. 

Under the U.S.-USSR Environmental Protection Agreement, 
one working group devotes its efforts to questions concerning 
the influence of environmental changes on climate. This group 
has arranged for numerous exchanges of scientists, meetings 
and symposia, data exchanges and the intercalibration of 
environmental monitoring instruments. 


Oceanography 


Basket II encourages the participating states to promote 
cooperation in oceanographic research, particularly the study 
of air/sea interactions. In keeping with that conrmitment, the 
United States is participating in several multilateral ocean¬ 
ographic programs, in addition to five bilateral programs 
initiated with the Soviet Union, Poland and the German 
Democratic Republic. 

Bilateral Cooperation 


USSR 


Three major programs form the basis of U.S./USSR coopera¬ 
tive efforts in the area of oceanographic research. The largest 
is a result of the U.S./USSR Agreement on Cooperation in Studies 
of the World Ocean, signed in Washington, D.C. on June 19, 1973, 
and extended until December 15, 1981. A Joint Committee on 

Cooperation in World Ocean Studies was created to implement 


227 



the Agreement and it established five working groups to develop 
and realize cooperative activities. These working groups are 
on large-scale ocean-atmospheric interaction; ocean currents 
and dynamics; geology, geophysics and geochemistry of the world 
ocean floor; interca1ibration and standardization of oceano¬ 
graphic instruments and methods; and biological productivity 
and biochemistry. Each of these groups has actively pursued 
mutually beneficial exchanges of experts and information, as 
well as extensive joint research projects. 

Another important example of joint U.S.-Soviet cooperation 
in oceanographic research is the Marine Manrmal Project which 
has evolved out of the U.S./USSR Agreement on Environmental 
Protection. The objective is "to develop collaborative research 
into the biology, ecology and population dynamics of marine 
mammals of interest to both countries and thus contribute to 
sound management and conservation of these animals," and it 
is being realized through the exchange of information and 
current data, coordinated and shared national research projects, 
and joint research projects. Most of the cooperative studies 
have concentrated on manrmal activities in the North Pacific 
area. 


In a third major oceanographic program with the Soviet 
Union, U.S. scientists from the Northeast Fisheries Center of 
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's 
(NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Services have been conducting 
joint fisheries research with Soviet scientists from the USSR 
Atlantic Scientific Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and 
Oceanography (At 1 antNIRO). The main focus of the joint research 
has been to cooperate on life history studies and assessments 
of major commercial fish species in the fisheries' zone of the 
Northeast Atlantic U.S. coast, as well as on extensive eco- 
s ys tern s t udies. 


Poland 


A similar program has been established between U.S. and 
Polish fisheries' scientists who meet periodically to review 
joint projects in such areas as herring studies, environmental 
assessment programs, and lining and patch studies. The U.S. has 
also helped fund and operate a Plankton Sorting and Identifica¬ 
tion Center in Poland. 


GDR 


Scientists from the German Democratic Republic's Institute 
for Deep Sea Fishing and Fish Processing and from NOAA's North¬ 
east Fisheries Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts are involved 
in a program of cooperation to investigate marine resources 
within the 200-mile fishing zone of the United States. Planned 
activities for the next two years will include herring and 


228 




plankton surveys, herring stock samplings and mackerel feeding 
inves tigations. 

Bilateral fisheries programs have also been implemented 
between the U.S. and both Spain and the Federal Republic of 
Germany. 

Multilateral Cooperation 

Within the United Nations, the U.S., through the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has taken an active 
role in oceanographic-re1ated groups including: UNESCO's Inter¬ 
governmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC); the United Nations 
Environment Program; and the Intergovernmental Maritime Consul¬ 
tative Organization, which deals primarily with international 
maritime safety. The U.S. has also participated in the Interna 
tional Council for the Exploration of the Sea (to encourage 
and coordinate investigations for the study of the sea), and 
the International Hydrographic Organization (to make world navi 
gation safer by improving nautical charts). Within NATO, the 
U.S. has initiated oceanographic programs with France, Canada 
and the United Kingdom. 

Se i smo 1ogica1 Research 

Earthquake studies have been singled out as another area 
of potentially valuable international cooperation. Joint 
projects on the study and forecasting of earthquakes, and 
research on the technology of se i sm- resisting constructions 
particularly are highlighted. 

Several U.S. Government agencies are involved in encourag¬ 
ing international seismo1ogical research, but primary respon¬ 
sibility rests with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The 
USGS participates, for example, in a worldwide seismic net¬ 
work of stations, and through that network exchanges seismic 
records with several of the signatory states, including 
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, 
Hungary, Poland, Romania and the USSR. Bulgaria, Poland, 
Romania and the USSR also exchange seismic risk mapping with 
the USGS and have been involved (with the exception of Bulgaria 
in additional joint research projects with the USGS. Since its 
1977 earthquake, Romania has received earthquake assistance 
and wi11 be procuring seismo1ogica1 equipment through the U.S. 
National Bureau of Standards and the Agency for International 
Deve 1 opment . 

The United States' most detailed formal cooperative seis- 
mological research agreement with the CMEA countries is with 
the Soviet Union. Under the joint Agreement on Environmental 
Protection, a special working group was established to study 
problems of earthquake prediction. The main directions of the 


229 


group's cooperative efforts have been in developing reliable 
methods of earthquake prediction and tsunami warnings (long- 
period gravity waves which travel through the Pacific); estimat¬ 
ing seismic risk; predicting strong ground motion as it relates 
to earthquake resistant design and planning; and understanding 
the physical and mechanical processes of earthquakes and 
tsunamis. Both the U.S. and USSR will be publishing and dissem¬ 
inating a collection of papers which will incorporate the 
results of the joint work at the end of 1979, in addition to the 
regular publication of separate papers in scientific journals. 

The United States has also been pursuing joint solutions 
to the problems of construction of buildings in seismic areas 
with the Soviet Union under the U.S.-USSR Agreement on Coopera¬ 
tion in the Field of Housing and Other Construction, signed 
in June of 1974 and renewed for an additional five years in 
June of 1979. Under that Agreement, the working group on tech¬ 
niques for construction in areas of frequent seismic activity 
has been involved in a regular exchange of data, information 
and specialists. Mention should also be made of U.S. partici¬ 
pation, through the National Academy of Sciences, in the Inter¬ 
national Geodynamics Project which was created to study shifts 
in the plates which form the earth's large land masses. Begun 
in 1974, the Project is continuing through 1979 and is particu¬ 
larly concerned with earthquakes and the effects on volcanoes. 

Research on Glaciology, Permafrost and Problems 
of Life Under Conditions of Cold 

In the areas of glaciology as well, the Final Act 
recognizes that countries must work cooperatively to resolve 
problems which are mutually shared, particularly problems 
relating to cold weather construction and permafrost-re1 ated 
environmental difficulties. 

The United States has been pursuing cooperative ventures 
with the Soviet Union in these areas under the terms of three 
separate agreements. For example, under the bilateral U.S.-USSR 
Housing Agreement, one of six working groups concentrates on 
the question of Building for Extreme Climates and Unusual 
Geological Conditions. The group has been encouraging exchanges 
of specialists, joint publications and cooperative research 
efforts in three fields, two of which involve design solutions 
and building construction under cold climatic conditions, and 
the other, foundations in permafrost and supporting sciences 
and technology. A joint seminar on "Construction in Permafrost" 
was held in Leningrad from June 25 to July 2, 1979, in which 
both U.S. and Soviet specialists exchanged and published 
technical research papers. 

Permafrost-re1ated environmental problems caused by the 
construction and operation of pipelines, roads and engineering 


230 


difficulties are studied as part of the U.S.-USSR Environmental 
Agreement. Joint research called for by the Agreement largely 
concerns developing techniques to predict the environmental 
impact of such construction projects and to monitor changes 
at control points in Alaska and Siberia. An additional topic 
of bilateral cooperation in the area of cold weather construc¬ 
tion is contained within the joint Energy Agreement and has 
lead to a mutual exchange of data and research on problems of 
constructing dams and hydropower stations in cold weather 
conditions. The Soviet Union has made advances in the design 
of embankment dams on permafrost which should be helpful in 
planning several projects in the United States. 

Computer Communication and Information Technologies 

The growing importance of computers and telecommunications 
in today's world led the negotiators of the Final Act to 
include, within these provisions, a section on information 
technologies and their application in various production, 
management and research processes. 

The United States has been actively involved in official 
cooperative projects in the computer area with the Soviet Union, 
principally under the U.S.-USSR Science and Technology Agree¬ 
ment. The U.S.-USSR Joint Working Group on Scientific and Tech¬ 
nical Cooperation in the field of the Application of Computers 
to Management, established in October of 1972 as a result of 
the Agreement, has intensified its activities over the past 
four years. Those activities have revolved around five major 
topic areas under which specific project activities have been 
carried out in various sub-topics. The five areas include 
econometric modeling; computer analysis applied to economics 
and management of large systems; application of computers to 
the management of large cities; theoretical foundations of soft¬ 
ware applications in economics and management; and the use of 
computers in decision-making and the advanced training of high- 
level administrative personnel. An indication of the recent 
increased activity in these fields is the fact that 18 meetings 
under the joint working group program were held from October of 
1972 through February of 1976, while 63 meetings have already 
been held from February of 1976 to June of 1979. As a result of 
these meetings, 10 long-term joint research projects have been 
initiated, 13 seminars have been organized on a broad range of 
topics within these fields, 130-200 specialists from each coun¬ 
try have been exchanged and a considerable amount of material 
has been published, disseminated and shared. The net effect of 
these cooperative efforts has been to allow specialists from 
both countries to review current computer problems in both the 
U.S. and Soviet Union and mutually to arrive at possible solu¬ 
tions. The U.S. National Science Foundation, the implementing 
agency for the Application of Computers to Management area, 
has recently corrmi s s i oned a study involving a Retrospective 


231 


Analysis of the Computer Program which will present a detailed 
historical record of the program and its results. The U.S. has 
also been involved in several commercial computer sales to the 
Soviet Union, including IBM and Sperry Univac computer sales. 

Space Research 

In line with Basket II's commitment to expand cooperation 
in the area of space exploration and satellite studies of the 
earth's resources, the United States is presently engaged in 
cooperative space activities with both the Soviet Union and 
Romania. The U.S. has generally attempted in these activities 
to concentrate on specific projects of mutual interest and 
benefit, rather than on generalized exchanges, and these goals 
have, on the whole, been met in existing cooperative ventures. 

Bilateral Cooperation 


USSR 


An "Agreement Between the United States of America and 
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning Cooperation 
in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes" 
was first signed on May 24, 1972, and renewed in 1977. To 

implement the Agreement's provisions, six joint working groups 
were established in the areas of space science, earth-resource 
sensing of the national environment, space biology and medicine, 
space meteorology, search and rescue, and a study group on the 
feasibility of joint U.S. Space Shuttle and Soviet Salyut Space 
Station experiments. These groups have arranged for the 
exchange of information, lunar samples, soil moisture measure¬ 
ments and satellite data as well as joint seminars and joint 
search and rescue projects. 


Roman i a 

There has been a moderate level of contact with Romanian 
space officials, including exchange visits of specialists. 

In 1977, for example, a U.S. space specialist hosted a round¬ 
table discussion on the U.S. space shuttle program in Romania's 
Space Council and National Council for Science and Technology. 

Several cooperative activities have developed from these 
interactions including the selection of a Romanian scientist 
as a Landsat-2 principal investigator and the selection of a 
Romanian proposal for flight on the Shuttle-borne Drop Dynamics 
Module. Additionally, negotiations are underway which are 
expected to lead to the establishment by Romania of a Landsat 
ground station with Romanian funding and a payment of a 200,000 
dollar, one-year access fee to the U.S. 


232 




Other 


In addition, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration sends announcements on a regular basis to Soviet 
and East European scientists concerning space research oppor¬ 
tunities within the United States. 

Multilateral Cooperation 

As one of the two largest world space powers, the U.S. 
plays a prominent role in the work of the varied multilateral 
organizations involved in this area. U.S. participants in the 
United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 
have constructively worked to reach agreement on several 
treaties regulating outer space activities and are presently 
pursuing an international legal regime to govern the use of 
direct broadcasting and remote sensing. The U.S. is also an 
active member of organizations such as the International 
Te 1 econnmun i cat i on s Satellite Organization. Six U.S. agencies 
are taking part in the 1976-1979 International Magnetospheric 
Study designed to investigate properties of the earth's magnetic 
field in space. 


Medicine and Public Health 

The Final Act notes that medical research, development 
of new drugs, the study of contemporary problems of pediatrics 
and gerontology, and the organization and techniques of medical 
services are subjects where international cooperation could 
be most beneficially expanded in the areas of medicine and 
pub 1ic hea1th. 

Within the United States, the Public Health Service (PHS) 
and National Institutes of Health (NIH), both contained within 
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), have 
sought to promote international biomedical cooperation in the 
belief that the exchange of data among scientists throughout 
the world is fundamental to scientific progress and the growth 
of international understanding. 

To meet such goals, the National Institute of Health has 
fostered a number of programs -- in which scientists from the 
signatory states have participated -- designed to promote 
advanced study in the biomedical and related sciences and to 
develop practical methods for utilizing the knowledge thus 
gained. These programs were established to encourage exchange, 
interaction, study, cooperation and collaboration within the 
international biomedical corrmunity and have provided opportuni¬ 
ties for in-depth studies and discussion of significant 
research, public health and biomedical 1y-re1 ated social and 
economic issues. Additionally, NIH awards individual foreign 
grants and contracts, publishes biomedical data from scientists 
abroad and disseminates information from participants in inter- 


233 



national scientific conferences and symposia. Over the past 
four years, it has been estimated that close to 1,000 scientists 
have traveled between the U.S. and CMEA nations under NIH- 
sponsored programs. 

HEW's Center for Disease Control (CDC) also provides 
specialized training, work experience and consultations for 
foreign scientists and health officials who visit the Center. 

The Center funds a Service Fellowship Program which awards 
fellowships to scientists who have unusual medical knowledge 
and experience. CDC also collaborates on disease-related 
projects in five countries of the world, including Yugoslavia 
and Poland, with a total budget of $12,970,776. 

Bilateral Cooperation 

The United States is presently involved in cooperative 
bilateral programs, formally or informally, with 27 of the 34 
signatory states. Cooperative biomedical agreements have been 
signed with 11 countries including Belgium, Canada, France, 
the FRG, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, the USSR 
and Yugoslavia. Some level of formal cooperation is being 
considered or negotiated with Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the 
GDR, Greece, Hungary and Spain. Informal research activity 
through exchanges of scientists or NIH grant awards is being 
conducted with Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, 
Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. 

Two of these bilateral agreements for cooperation in health 
deserve special mention. 


Poland 


The first is the Cooperation in the Field of Health Agree¬ 
ment, signed in 1974, between the U.S. Department of Health, 
Eduction and Welfare and the Polish Ministry of Health and 
Social Welfare. The objective of this Agreement is to combine, 
where possible, the resources of the governments of Poland and 
the United States in joint efforts towards the solution of 
health problems of mutual interest. More specifically, the 
Agreement provides for cooperative activities with two possible 
sources of funding: a Joint Fund and "those other resources" 
which may become available from public and private institutions 
which agree to cooperate. 

Additionally, the Agreement establishes a U.S.-Polish Joint 
Corrmittee for Health Cooperation to oversee implementation of 
the program. Specifically, the Joint Committee is charged with 
the responsibility for: (1) determining policy relating to the 
Agreement; (2) identifying the priority areas and programs; 

(3) establishing the mechanisms and practical aspects of cooper¬ 
ation; and (4) reviewing and evaluating the progress of activi- 


234 



ties under the Agreement. 

Since the Agreement was signed, the U.S. has contri¬ 
buted approximately eight million dollars to the Joint Fund. 
Matching contributions from Poland is on-going. Forty-two 
projects are actively engaged and 12 new project proposals are 
currently being reviewed at NIH for scientific merit and 
personnel competence. The research and exchanges conducted 
under the Agreement have, it is agreed, been professionally 
and personally beneficial to both countries. 

USSR 

Another agreement of major interest and significance has 
been the one negotiated between HEW and the Ministry of Health, 
USSR. The two organizations negotiated two separate agreements 
which have formed the basis of U.S.-USSR cooperative activities 
in the field of health research: the Agreement for Cooperation 
in Medical Service and Public Health, signed in 1972 and renewed 
in 1977 for a second five-year period, and the Agreement for 
Cooperation in Artificial Heart Research and Development, signed 
in 1974 and renewed in 1977 for five years. 

Both Agreements call for the establishment of a U.S.-USSR 
Joint Committee for Health Cooperation, charged with implement¬ 
ing the practical aspects of health cooperation including the 
oversight of policy and administrative logistics. Additionally, 
the Agreements committed both sides to conducting cooperative 
efforts in the biomedical field through joint research projects 
and the individual exchange of scientists. 

While activities under the program have generally pro¬ 
gressed in a satisfactory manner, the Joint Committee has 
recognized an unevenness in the progress. Some areas move 
rapidly to intensive joint research, while others remain in 
the preliminary stages of exchanging background information 
and exploring the potentials of joint work. To the people 
involved in this work, slow progress has sometimes been a source 
of personal disappointment and dissatisfaction. 

In some measure, the U.S.-USSR Program for Health Coopera¬ 
tion has served as an experimental model for future internation¬ 
al programs of the Public Health Service. Although it is not 
unique in its fundamental design, it is the largest and most 
thoroughly evaluated and centrally administered cooperative 
international health program. Broad areas of interests, major 
administrative considerations, and a yearly evaluation are over¬ 
seen by the binational Joint Committee. The scientific aspects 
of the program remain, however, the prerogative of working level 


235 



scientists and institutions. The program has been unique 
because the countries have shared benefits and costs equally. 
Unlike many international health programs, no funds and very 
little technical hardware change hands. Each side basically 
underwrites the costs of its participation in cooperative 
projects with full and timely sharing of scientific data and 
results. 

U.S. scientists and coordinators have had to learn to 
accommodate great disparities with their Soviet contacts in 
political, cultural and economic institutions as well as in 
the technical and scientific capabilities of both countries 
as they sought to define specific activities where both sides 
could cooperate for mutual benefit. The results have been of 
notable benefit to both countries. 

Multilateral Cooperation 

The United States has worked closely with the various 
hea1th-re1 ated multilateral agencies, particularly the World 
Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF, to help in resolving 
specific global health problems. The U.S. has supported and 
participated in programs concerning, among other issues, mater¬ 
nal and child health care, research and training in tropical 
diseases, improvement in the status of nutrition, disease 
control, health manpower development and promotion of environ¬ 
mental health. Additionally, the United States has actively 
cooperated with the WHO Regional Office for Europe on activities 
relating to maternal and child health care, health services 
research, environmental health and cancer research. 

Environmental Research 

(U.S. activities in cooperative research projects on 
specific scientific and technological problems related to the 
environment are covered in detail in the "Environment" section 
of this repor t). 

Forms and Methods of Cooperation 


The Final Act specifically outlines the types of activities 
which should govern international cooperation in the scientific 
and technological fields discussed above. These activities 
are, in fact, the specific forms of cooperation the United 
States has been pursuing with the Eastern signatory nations: 
exchanges of information and publications; exchanges of and 
direct contacts among specialists; international conferences 
and meetings; joint research programs and projects; use of 
commercial channels; and full use of bilateral and multilateral 
cooperative arrangements. 


236 



Since a special emphasis is made under these provisions on 
the improved exchange of scientific and technological informa¬ 
tion, mention should be made of a special branch of the U.S. 
Government created for that purpose -- the National Technical 
Information Service (NT IS). NT IS was created in 1970 to sim¬ 
plify and improve public access to U.S. Department of Commerce 
publications, data files, patents, and Federal Agency technical 
reports. It also coordinates the publishing and technical 
inquiry functions of different Special Technology Groups. NTIS 
publishes 26 abstract newsletters of new information items and 
an all-inclusive biweekly journal. It also provides NTIS' Bib¬ 
liographic Data Base to a computer network serving customers 
worldwide. NTIS has, in addition, received the rights to pub¬ 
lish and sell English translations of six copyrighted Soviet 
scientific journals and selected articles from more than 500 
Soviet journals and books. The Information Service also 
provides most U.S. reports announced in the INIS (International 
Nuclear Informtion System) Atomindex and most non-U.S. reports 
abstracted in the Atomindex (as of T976, almost 4,000 Soviet 
reports have been announced, all for U.S. sales only). The 
entire NTIS inventory is available to all the signatory 
countries -- a service which has not been reciprocated by all 
the Eastern signatory states. Thus far, 4,400 reports have 
been sold to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union by NTIS. 

The National Science Foundation is another agency active 
in the area of improving technical information exchange. The 
Foundation coordinates and administers the Special Foreign 
Currency Science Information Program in which U.S. government 
research scientists select materials of East European technology 
to be translated for the Federal government. NSF also 
periodically publishes reports which aim at expanding and 
improving scientific and technical communication. 

This section of the Final Act also suggests that the United 
Nations Economic Commission for Europe study possibilities "for 
sponsoring conferences, symposia and study and working groups 
such as those which would bring together younger scientists 
and technologists with eminent specialists in their field." 

U.S. delegates to the ECE Senior Science Advisors supported 
a proposal that the Senior Advisors incorporate projects into 
their working program which would bring such younger scientists 
together to meet with well-known specialists. The advisors 
passed a resolution that called on government to encourage the 
participation of younger scientists in ECE Science seminars. 

The United States has, in addition, assisted in the work 
of international programs, such as UNESCO's World Science 
Information System, which are concerned with information policy 
guidance, as mandated in this section of the Final Act. 


237 





ENVIRONMENT 


In Section five of the CSCE Final Act, the participating 
states affirm the importance of close international cooperation 
for "the protection and improvement of the environment, as well 
as the protection of nature and the rational utilization of 
its resources..." The signatory states declare their intention 
to pursue "every suitable opportunity to cooperate" in the 
control of air pollution, water pollution control and fresh 
water utilization, protection of the marine environment, land 
utilization and soils, nature conservation and nature reserves, 
improvement of environmental conditions in areas of human 
settlement, fundamental research, monitoring, forecasting and 
assessment of environmental changes, and legal and adminis¬ 
trative methods. The participating states further resolve to 
implement this cooperation on both a multilateral and bilateral 
basis through a wide variety of forms and methods, such as the 
exchange of information and specialists, organization of sym¬ 
posia and joint projects and consultations with other states. 

The U.S. has a long history of concern for its national 
environment. In many respects, the country has been a world 
leader in efforts to control and abate pollution and preserve 
the ecological balance within its territorial boundaries. For 
example, in 1970, an executive order created the independent 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within the Executive 
Branch to spearhead the government's integrated, coordinated 
attack on environmental pollution. Since 1976, Congress has 
passed major environmental legislation such as the Toxic Sub¬ 
stances Control Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act, as well as amendments to the landmark Clean Air and Clean 
Water Acts. Additionally, the Environmental Research, Develop¬ 
ment and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 mandated a 
separate program to insure continuing environmental research 
and deve1opment. 

Presently, 40 federal agencies, including cabinet - 1 eve 1 
departments, are involved in the broad effort to prevent pollu¬ 
tion in all environmental fields. In his May of 1977 environ¬ 
mental message to Congress, President Carter re-emphasized the 
U.S. commitment "to protect our most important resource -- human 
health -- from. ..hazardous substances in the environment." 

On an international scale, the United States has also 
officially affirmed its commitment to cooperation on environ¬ 
mental issues. As stated in the 1969 National Environment 
Policy Act of the United States: 

"The goals of our international activities 
are to recognize the worldwide and long-range 
character of environmental problems and, where 
consistent with the foreign policy of the United 


238 



States, lend support to initiatives, resolutions, 
and programs designed to improve international 
cooperation in anticipating and preventing a 
decline in the quality of our global environment." 

Several U.S. Government agencies currently conduct a high 
level of cooperative environmental research with other nations 
and international organizations. The U.S. Departments of State, 
Interior, Commerce and Agriculture as well as other government 
offices are involved in this effort. The U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), however, has been the chief vehicle in 
U.S. efforts to comply with the Final Act's provisions on envi¬ 
ronmental cooperation. Most of the project descriptions and 
statements on U.S. environmental policy included in this report 
are directly from the EPA's 3une of 1978 Reserach Outlook. 

Forms and Methods of Cooperation 

The United States participates in working groups on the 
environment associated with nimerous multilateral organizations 
such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop¬ 
ment (OECD), NATO's Committee on the Challenges of Modern 
Society (CCMS) , the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), 
the World Health Organization (WHO), the Commission of European 
Communities and the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE). The 
United States Government also supports the principal inter¬ 
national conventions on environmental issues. Recently, the 
U.S. was an active participant in the April of 1979 plenary 
sessions of the ECE and played an important role in laying the 
groundwork for the high-level meeting on environmental issues 
scheduled for November of 1979. Participating governments at 
the meeting will discuss, and perhaps approve, a Long Range 
Transboundary Air Pollution Agreement and a Low and Non-Waste 
Technology Agreement. 

U.S. specialists are also engaged in many bilateral pro¬ 
jects with Helsinki signatory states under agreements that 
either deal exclusively with environmental issues or are part 
of broader accords on scientific and technological cooperation. 
The U.S. has concluded comprehensive bilateral agreements on the 
environment with Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, France 
and the United Kingdom, Poland, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. 

Ongoing international operations by U.S. representatives 
include, among other forms of cooperation outlined in the Final 
Act, participation in fact-finding missions and international 
conferences, initation of joint programs and ventures, and 
providing advice to countries that request assistance in solving 
their own environmental problems. 

TT. An overview of EPA's international activities appears in 
Appendix VI } Chart 3. 


239 





For example, joint activity under the U.S.-USSR Environ¬ 
mental Agreement, one of the first of 11 such scientific- 
technical agreements between the two countries signed in May 
of 1972 and renewed for five years in May of 1977, encompasses 
all the forms set forth in the CSCE Final Act. These include: 
exchange of scientific and technical documentation and data; 
conferences, symposia, and working group meetings; exchanges 
of trained personnel; planning and implementation of joint pro¬ 
grams and experiments; intercalibration of measurement instru¬ 
mentation; publication of bilingual technical glossaries, and 
other appropriate efforts in the direction of harmonizing 
standards. Additionally, annual joint committee meetings -- co¬ 
chaired, on the American side, by the administrator of EPA -- 
permit regular high-level U.S.-Soviet consultations on new 
environmental topics of international importance. In 1978, 
a total of 162 Americans and 134 Soviets visited each other's 
country to discuss the above activities. 

The U.S.-USSR Environmental Agreement specifically author¬ 
izes the two sides, upon mutual consent, to share the results 
of their cooperation with other countries. Some projects in 
the area of nature conservation are closely associated with 
programs operating under the auspices of UNESCO and the UN 
Environment Program (UNEP). U.S.-Soviet co11aboration on pre¬ 
vention and clean-up of marine pollution from shipping is 
explicity tied into the activities of the Intergovernmental 
Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) and appropriate inter¬ 
national conventions. 

Fields of Cooperation 


Air Pollution Control 

According to EPA, research on air pollutants is a central 
aspect of U.S. international cooperative programs. EPA, there¬ 
fore, has been working under bilateral agreements and programs 
with the Helsinki signatory states of France and the United 
Kingdom to combat air pollution. These agreements include joint 
studies on the potential hazards of the large-scale release 
of carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere and on the halt 
of ozone depletion. The EPA and the U.S. Department of State 
have been working with Canada and the International Joint 
Commission to resolve the increasing number of cross-boundary 
air pollution problems between the two nations. 

The U.S. is engaged in cooperative efforts to assess the 
environmental consequences of coal conversion technology with 
the Federal Republic of Germany and Yugloslavia. The U.S. and 
the FRG agreed in 1977 to exchange information and, in certain 
cases, to work together to assure efficient development of 
technologies to burn coal in an environmentally acceptable 


240 



manner. A study presently underway with Yugoslavia wi11 provide 
a full evaluation of the Kosovo Coal Gassification Plant. 
Similarly, the U.S. and Poland have conducted a joint study 
of environmental control on coal combustion and its by-products 
in Polish plants. 

The U.S.-USSR Environmental Agreement incorporates seven 
projects on topics of air pollution modeling and measurement, 
stationary source air pollution control technology and mobile 
source emissions. A joint wind tunnel experiment is planned 
to simulate the distribution of air pollutants over specified 
complex terrain and a joint field experiment will be conducted 
in the USSR to study the formation and transportation of natural 
aerosols. These two activities will aid both countries in 
understanding basic air pollution processes. Another joint 
program is under way on the development of safeguards against 
pollution from coal processing facilities. 

On a multilateral level, the EPA represents the United 
States in air pollution research programs with 11 separate 
international agencies. 

The U.S. has participated in discussions about problems 
concerning the earth's protective ozone layer in the United 
Nations Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer which reviews 
ongoing research, identifies research and monitoring needs, 
recommends (with priorities) needed research projects and 
attempts to influence nations and international scientific 
organizations to conduct such studies. The EPA presented the 
United States' position on stratospheric ozone in these 
discussions. The U.S. is also a signatory to the Tripartite 
(France, United Kingdom and the United States) Agreement on 
Stratospheric Monitoring, which provides a coordinated program 
of stratospheric monitoring. 

An excellent example of the U.S. commitment to cooperation 
on a multilateral basis is the ongoing Isotopic Lead Experiment 
sponsored by the Common Market, Italian Federal Hydrocarbon 
Authority and International Lead and Zinc Research Organi¬ 
zation. Under this study, gasoline stations in Torino, Italy, 
converted to a different lead isotope ratio in gasoline. The 
amount of lead in the human blood actually coming from automo¬ 
tive sources will be determined by measuring blood lead levels 
during the use of this special gasoline and after the Torino 
area returns to the original gasoline. 

The U.S. has also been involved in the meetings of ECE 
experts and of the Senior Advisors to ECE Governments on Envi¬ 
ronmental Problems which helped prepare a Long Range Trans¬ 
boundary Air Pollution Agreement to be approved at the ECE 
Committee on the Development of Trade's annual session in 
November of 1979. 


241 


Water Pollution Control, Fresh Water Utilization, and 

Marine Environment Protection 

A landmark of international cooperation in the Helsinki 
spirit regarding improved water quality is the 1972 United 
States-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, under which 
the two countries operate through the International Joint 
Commission to support a water quality monitoring program and 
to devise a necessary research program to guide and support 
surveillance activities. The EPA also provides expert consul¬ 
tation on a variety of issues related to U.S.-Canada cross¬ 
boundary water pollution problems and participates in large- 
scale, long-term ecosystem studies with its Canadian counter¬ 
part. The Great Lakes Agreement is one of the few ongoing 
ecosystem studies. 

Besides the Great Lakes Agreement, the U.S. has separate 
water pollution control agreements which include marine 
environment protection provisions with the Federal Republic 
of Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The U.S., through 
the EPA, is conducting research with Yugoslavia on water 
pollutants such as silicates, heavy metals and acid dust. 
Additionally, the U.S. and Polish governments are co11aborating 
on renovation and recycling projects in Poland. Based upon 
findings from combined projects, American and Polish specialists 
have developed new techniques of removing pollutants from 
textile industry wastewater. 

The U.S.-USSR Environmental Agreement embraces three joint 
projects on fresh water quality management. One of these in¬ 
volves comparative on-site analogies of water protection 
programs in selected river basins. A joint symposium on the 
subject was held during the fall of 1979. U.S. and Soviet 
experts collaborated in developing mathematical models of pollu¬ 
tion transport in lakes and inland seas. A follow-up symposium 
on the use of this research for planning purposes is also 
scheduled for the latter part of 1979. Active bilateral 
research is in progress on the behavior of toxic substances 
in aquatic ecosystems. 

The U.S.-USSR working group on prevention of water 
pollution from industrial and municipal sources has held 
discussions on various phases of new Soviet water pollution 
technologies. Such activities should, in the near future, 
provide additional benefits, not only in terms of cleaner 
processes and more effective control technologies, but also 
in terms of a vastly improved understanding of the systems 
involved. 

U.S.-Soviet cooperation in the protection of the marine 
environment operates on two tracks: prevention and clean-up 


242 


of pollution from shipping and effects of pollution on marine 
organisms. Combined activities have occured in several differ¬ 
ent ocean regions, including the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, 
the North Atlantic and North Pacific. According to the details 
of the agreements, by the end of 1979, two types of Soviet oil 
skimmers will have been shipped to the U.S. for tests at an 
EPA facility in New Jersey, the Soviets will have hosted a joint 
symposium on biological effects of marine pollution and Soviet 
specialists will have visited the U.S. for purposes of inter¬ 
calibrating methods to determine the presence of oil and 
petroleum products in ocean water. 

To improve knowledge of wastewater treatment and disposal 
methods, the U.S. is participating in international research 
involving sources of pollution, advanced wastewater treatment 
technology, process modification and analyses of sludges and 
their environmental effects. One of the most important of these 
efforts is the study of advanced wastewater treatment being 
conducted under the auspices of NATO's Conrrrmittee on the 
Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS) in which the United States, 
United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, France and Germany are studying, 
among other topics, the standardization of formats for inter¬ 
national information exchange. 

Improvement of Environmental Conditions in Areas of Human 

Settlement, Nature Conservation, and Land Utilization 

Issues relating to the improvement of environmental 
conditions, multimedia exposure to environmental chemicals and 
related health effects, significant changes in ecosystems, and 
disposal of toxic substances are of primary concern to environ¬ 
mentalists worldwide. Therefore the U.S. is working on several 
international initiatives in this area. 

Implementation of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act 
requires cooperation in establishing international agreements 
on regulatory procedures, such as consistent testing require¬ 
ments, agreed quality control procedures and standard methods. 
The U.S. is concentrating its efforts in this area within major 
international organizations such as the Chemicals Group of the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 

EPA is participating actively in the chemical testing program 
of the Chemicals Group to harmonize test methods and systems 
to predict the effects of substances on humans and the environ¬ 
ment before substances enter the marketplace. EPA's focus is 
on methods for testing the long-term effects of chemical 
substances on human health. 

The U.S. is discussing with the European Commission the 
administrative details of toxic substances control. Also in 
cooperation with the World Health Organization, the U.S., 


243 



t iiruugn tne EPA, will help develop an international plan of 
action to improve the evaluation of health risks from exposure 
to chemi cals. 

Thus EPA is working with various countries to assess risks 
and benefits associated with various methods of hazardous waste 
disposal. Of key interest is a NATO Committee on Challenges 
of Modern Society pilot study on the disposal of hazardous 
wastes which is now entering Phase II of its operation. Phase 
I of the study provided valuable insight into mine and landfill 
disposal practices and produced recommended procedures for 
hazardous waste management. Phase II will include analyses 
of other thermal treatment systems. 

The U.S. is taking steps on other problems relating to 
the improvement of environmental conditions in settled areas. 

One such problem, underscored in the CSCE Final Act, is that 
of the harmful effects of noise. The U.S., primarily through 
EPA, is cooperating on noise abatement research, along with 
the OECD, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the 
World Health Organization, and the U.N. Environment Program. 

The U.S. also has an agreement with France on regulating "noise 
pollution." 

U.S.-USSR cooperation on improving environmental conditions 
originally fell under the authority of the multifaceted U.S.- 
USSR Environmental Agreement. It has now been transferred to 
the purview of the U.S.-USSR Housing Agreement of 1974. As 
outlined in the Helsinki accords, an active information exchange 
continues in projects relating to environmental aspects of urban 
transportation, solid v/aste processing, urban land use and the 
planning and management of urban recreation zones. Addition¬ 
ally, in 1978 Soviet and American agencies conducted an exchange 
of exhibits on the preservation and restoration of historic 
sites and structures. 

The U.S.-USSR Environmental Agreement also contains an 
extensive program of bilateral cooperation in the realm of 
nature conservation and reserves management. Related activities 
include: implementation of the US-USSR Migratory Bird Convention 
of October of 1978, study and conservation of rare species of 
cranes, protection of northern ecosystems, and study and propa¬ 
gation of endangered plant species. Soviet and American 
specialists are actively involved in joint research into the 
biology, ecology and population dynamics of marine mammals. 

The two sides are exploring the possibility of concluding a 
formal convention on the conservation of north Pacific marine 
mammals. Another new initiative currently under discussion 
concerns aquaculture technology and fisheries management. 

Joint activity between the U.S. and the USSR in the area 
of soil conservation is implemented under projects concerned 


244 


with biological approaches to agricultural pest management and 
transport/transformation of pesticides. A separate effort is 
also under way on techniques of reclamation and revegetation 
of disturbed land, a topic of special interest to industrial 
nations engaged in intensive energy-re 1ated development (strip 
mining, pipeline construction, etc). 

Likewise, the United States, through the Fish and Wildlife 
Service of the Department of Interior, has a valuable bilateral 
agreement with Spain on protection of nature and nature 
reserves, and on wildlife and park management. The United 
States is involved in several combined activities with Poland 
and Yugoslavia aimed at more effective land utilization and 
the protection and recultivation of soils. 

Moreover, the U.S. Government maintains a close working 
relationship with the International Union for Conservation of 
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), a worldwide association 
established to promote research on the natural environment. 

The United State has joined the IUCN's member governments and 
international organizations in a broad array of projects 
designed to preserve natural wildlife habitats, to ensure the 
perpetuation of wildlife species and to protect the ecological 
balance in general. The U.S. is a signatory to one of the 
largest and most important conventions on wildlife protection 
in the world -- the 51-nation Endangered Species Convention of 
1973. 


Besides subscribing to the principal international conven¬ 
tions on wildlife protection and nature preservation, the U.S. 
is active in research and development programs under the 
auspices of a number of multilateral agencies. For instance, 
U.S. specialists on pesticides are continuously involved in 
work with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 
the World Health Organization, the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the U.N. Environment 
P r o g r am. 

Research, Monitoring, Forecasting, and Assessment of 
Environmental Changes and Legal and Administrative Methods 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency believes that 
"a comprehensive environmental monitoring program is a pre¬ 
requisite for complete United States participation in the 
establishment of a global monitoring system. This international 
coordination, as well as the development of a national 
monitoring capability, will increase the base of knowledge on 


245 


pollutant build-up in the environment before that build-up 
reaches crisis proportions." 

In keeping with this view, many of the bilateral environ¬ 
mental agreements that the U.S. has negotiated with partici¬ 
pating states incorporate the monitoring and forecasting of 
environmental changes. Long-term monitoring is a significant 
feature of the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Agreement. Similarly, 
joint research projects with other nations often call for the 
development of regulations and administrative devices to protect 
the environment and assess potential harmful consequences. For 
instance, the fundamental challenge of monitoring, forecasting 
and assessing environmental change is attacked in many of its 
facets under the U.S.-USSR Environmental Agreement. One joint 
project seeks to clarify the effects of pesticides and fertili¬ 
zers on aquatic and terrestrial fauna. Another focuses on the 
impact of pollution on forest systems. A third study is the 
biological and genetic effects of particular forms of pollu¬ 
tion. A working group of several projects provides for a rich 
program of joint research into the influence of environmental 
changes on climate. One of the most consistently valuable areas 
of cooperation under the Environmental Agreement involves field 
and theoretical investigations of earthquake precursors and 
seismic risk. In a separate project, Soviet and American scien¬ 
tists recently pooled resources in an open ocean experiment on 
the formation and propagation of tsunamis in the northern 
Pacific. 

Still other projects aim at the sharing of insights and 
approaches to the legal/administrative side of environmental 
protection and the harmonizing of pollution control standards 
in the two countries. Teams of U.S. and Soviet observers wi 11 
visit specially designated areas in each other's country to 
initiate comprehensive regional analyses of environmental 
quality, including aspects of ecology, economics and public 
health. The American side will host a follow-up symposium, 
with the ultimate purpose of developing a mutually useful 
program of environmental quality monitoring and control. 

The U.S. also actively contributes to the work of inter¬ 
national organizations such as the Stratospheric Ozone Monitor¬ 
ing Program and the United Nations Environment Program's Global 
Environmental Monitoring System. Primarily concerned with air, 
this system will link existing national monitoring activities. 
United States cooperation in the global water quality monitoring 
network is expected to increase as a result of EPA's role as a 
World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Environmental 


34. U.S. Evironmental Protection Agency, Research Outlook, 
June of 1978. 


246 





Pollution Control. The data from joint surveillance and moni¬ 
toring in the Great Lakes will also be incorporated into the 
Global Environmental Monitoring System. 

Over and above these commitments, the U.S. has taken the 
initiative in establishing legal and administrative procedures 
for worldwide environmental impact assessments, a measure speci 
fically advocated in the CSCE Final Act. In April of 1979 the 
U.S. Department of State expressed before a meeting of the U.N. 
Environment Program U.S. interest in developing international 
arrangements for the use of environmental impact assessments 
and consultations. Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, 
co-chairman of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation 
in Europe, sponsored the initial resolution in the U.S. Senate 
that outlined the details of a far-reaching treaty on the issue 
The U.S. Senate approved the treaty resolution unanimously. 

The U.S. plan would call on signatory governments to prepare 
an environmental impact assessment statement for any major 
project that would affect the environment of another country 
or "the global commons." The signatory government would then 
transmit the assessment and consult with the affected country 
or in the case of "the global commons," the U.N. Environment 
Program. 


Cone 1u sion 

Most of these programs were initiated before the signing 
of the Helsinki accord. But in compliance with the Final Act's 
provisions, the United States has continued to pursue inter¬ 
national cooperation with the Helsinki signtory states in every 
field of environmental concern specified in the Final Act and 
by every method and form recommended. The bilateral and multi¬ 
lateral agreements highlighted here comprise only a portion 
of U.S. international environmental cooperation relating to 
the CSCE accords. 


COOPERATION IN OTHER AREAS 

The sixth and final Basket II section deals with four 
specialized and differing areas of economic cooperation which 
have not been covered in great detail under any of the previous 
Final Act provisions: development of transport, promotion of 
tourism, economic and social aspects of migrant labor, and 
training of personnel. 

Development of Transport 

These Final Act provisions outline the importance of 
encouraging the international improvement of transportation 


247 




conditions and problems. The signatory states to the Final 
Act should, according to these clauses, increase their level 
of cooperation and information exchanges; work towards the har¬ 
monizing of administrative formalities and safety provisions 
in transportation; improve international inland transport, 
particularly within inland waterways and railroads; and inten¬ 
sify their work in international organizations, particularly 
the ECE 's Inland Transport Corrm ittee, and their accession to 
international transport conventions. 

The U.S. government, through the Department of Transpor¬ 
tation (DOT), has been actively and visibly involved in promot¬ 
ing cooperative ventures in the areas of transport technology 
and conditions through bilateral programs and through participa¬ 
tion in the transportation work of various international organi¬ 
zations, particularly the ECE. 

The United States is presently participating in bilateral 
programs with five CMEA states (Czechoslovakia, Hungary, 

Poland, Romania and the USSR) and seven West European 
countries (Canada, France, FRG, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain 
and United Kingdom); ad hoc cooperative arrangements are also 
in existence with Bulgaria, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, 
Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. These programs are promoted 
principally for the purposes of acquiring and sharing useful 
technology and experience and incidentally, for promoting sales 
of U.S. technology and equipme n t. 


U.S. participation in the activities of various multi¬ 
lateral organizations is focused on their work in developing and 
adopting international transportation standards and regulations, 
in considering regional transportation problems, in discussing 
shared problems and national experiences, and in disseminating 
technology and the results of multilateral research work. 


While there has been no significant 
or multilateral activities with the CSCE 
since the signing of the Final Act (most 
negotiated prior to August 1, 1975), the 
called for in these agreements have been 
torily during the period. Two bilateral 
have, however, been concluded since 1975 
standing with the Dutch Ministry 
in the fall of 1977 and one with 


increase in bilateral 
signatory countries 
of these programs were 
cooperative ventures 
progressing satisfac- 
cooperative agreements 
a Memorandum of Under 
of Transport and Public Works 
the Hungarian Ministry of 


Transportation and Postal Affairs in the fall of 1978 


Bilateral Cooperation 


Czechos1ovakia 

U.S.-Czechoslovak exchanges are based on a Memorandum of 
Understanding signed in June of 1968, which calls for both 


248 




countries to exchange information and specialists in specific 
subject areas. Most of the agreed exchanges have been 
completed, and the U.S. is looking to continue cooperative 
research projects, particularly in the areas of highway, rail 
and urban goods, after a government- 1 eve 1 bilateral agreement 
for scientific and technological cooperation is approved. 

Hungary 

After several years of exploratory visits and ad hoc 
exchanges of information between DOT officials and the Ministry 
of Transportation and Postal Affairs (MOTPA), a Memorandum of 
Understanding was concluded between the two organizations in 
October of 1978. DOT specialists are particularly interested 
in Hungarian research on rail track deformation and their bus 
development and testing program. 

The Hungarian Ministry of Transportation and Postal Affairs 
has been slow to respond to proposals for visits and tours of 
laboratories where research and development work is being 
realized. This may be due, in part, to the fact that the U.S. 
program is administered by only a few officials of MOTPA's 
international staff who are frequently traveling and thus react 
slowly to making arrangements for U.S. delegations. Since 1970 
approximately 15 U.S. specialists have visited Hungary and four 
Hungarian specialists have visited the U.S. for discussions on 
transportation issues and to explore possibilities for coopera¬ 
tive work. 


Poland 


U.S. cooperative work with the Polish Ministry of Transport 
is based on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in 
November of 1971 between the Department of Transportation and 
the Polish Ministry of Transport (MOT), informally extended 
by correspondence in 1976, and formally extended in Warsaw in 
October of 1978. The Memorandum is in the process of being 
further amended at the request of the Poles side through the 
exchange of diplomatic notes. 


Under the Memorandum, research projects have been developed 
in the areas of driver habits and training, pedestrian behavior, 
use of coal fly ash in highway construction, rail safety, rail 
track structure improvement, and human factors (aging and shift 
work) rail research. The first three projects have been suc¬ 
cessfully completed and the others are in their final phases. 

Roman i a 


Cooperative exchanges with Romania are based on a 
Memorandum of Understanding concluded in November of 1971 
between the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Romanian 


249 






Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications (MOTT). Limited 
exchanges of information have resulted from the agreement as 
the two sides have only recently been able to identify on-going 
research work of mutual interest and potential benefit. The 
U.S. has been particularly interested in cooperation in the 
rail area and the work now begun at the new Romanian rail test 
ring at Faurei. A three-man rail delegation visited Bucharest 
in April of 1979 for discussions regarding cooperative proposals 
discussed by the DOT-MOTT program coordinators in Bucharest 
last fall. 


USSR 

Cooperation in transportation between the United States 
and the Soviet Union, which began with exploratory exchanges 
of technical delegations in the areas of bridge construction 
and tunneling, high-speed rail and containerization, and urban 
transport and environment, was formalized by the conclusion 
of the U.S.-USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of 
Transportation, signed in June of 1973. The agreement was 
renewed in June of 1978 for two years, extendible for another 
three years unless either side gives at least 30 days notice 
of its intent to withdraw. 

As the Agreement specifies, Executive Agents (coordinating 
bodies) have been appointed for each side: DOT serves in this 
capacity for the U.S. and the State Committee on Science and 
Technology (SCST) serves for the Soviet side. A U.S.-USSR Joint 
Committee on Transportation, also provided for in the Agreement, 
was established to oversee implementation of the Agreement 
through annual meetings, alternating between Moscow and Washing¬ 
ton. A U.S.-Section of the Joint Committee was established 
(composed of DOT Assistant Secretaries, the General Counsel, 
Modal Administrators, the Chairman of National Transportation 
Safety Board, and representatives of Commerce (MARAD) and State) 
under the chairmanship of the Assistant Secretary of Transporta¬ 
tion for Policy and International Affairs. The chairman of 
the Soviet section is a Deputy Chairman of the SCST. 

The Department of Transportation is involved in two working 
groups under the U.S.-USSR Environmental Agreement: DOT Office 
of the Secretary personnel in work on urban environment, and 
Coast Guard personnel in work on prevention and cleanup of ship 
pollution. The objective of the urban environment project is 
essentially to examine each country's practices and problems in 
the area of urban transportation and to cooperate on projects 
that would help ease some of those problems. Since the project 
first began in 1973, there have been numerous exchanges of 
specialists and information, and the drafting of two joint 
reports. 


250 



Multilateral Cooperation 

International organizations have been active in the 
promotion of specific cooperative transportation projects to 
which the United States has been a notable contributor. There 
are, for example, five different international organs involved 
in the problem of the transport of dangerous goods: the U.N. 
ECOSOC Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods; 
the Economic Commission for Europe's (ECE) Committee on the 
same subject; the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative 
Organization (IMCO); the International Civil Aviation Organiza¬ 
tion (ICAD); and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 
Each group is working on codifying safety standards and 
increasing cooperation, the further exchange of information 
and the implementation of conventions on the transport of 
dangerous goods in their respective areas of competence. 

Other organs of multilateral cooperation in which the U.S. 
has taken a leading role include the Economic Commission for 
Europe's Inland Transport Committee; the International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAD); Intergovernmental Maritime Consul¬ 
tative Organization (IMCO); European Conference of Ministers 
of Transport (ECMT); Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD); International Standards Organization (ISO); 
International Union of Public Transport (UITP); and the Inter¬ 
national Union of Railways (UIC). 

Promotion of Tourism 


Recognizing "the contribution made by international tourism 
to the development of mutual understanding among peoples" and 
"the interrelationship between the development of tourism and 
measures taken in other areas of economic activity," Basket 
II includes a special section in which the participating states 
"express their intention to encourage increased tourism" by 
encouraging improvement of the tourist infrastructure, joint 
tourist projects, the exchange of tour i st-re1 ated information, 
the facilitation of the activities of foreign travel agencies, 
the exchange of specialists and the promotion of conferences 
and multilateral tourist studies. 

While the tourist industry in the United States is not 
centrally controlled as it is in the Eastern CSCE states, the 
U.S. Government has taken several measures to encourage and 
facilitate tourist travel to the United States. In the area 
of tourist data exchange, the United States Travel Service 
(created in 1961 within the Department of Commerce to promote 
international travel to the United States) has conducted numer¬ 
ous research surveys within the United States and abroad and 
publishes a bibliography of all available tourist publications. 
The USTS has, in addition, been urging countries such as the 
Soviet Union to work with the U.S. on harmonizing tourist data 


251 



and expects to send a representative to Moscow in September 
of 1979 to discuss the question of statistic harmonization. 

It has, additionally, urged the formation of a "Visit the USA" 
center at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. Every five years the 
Census Bureau conducts a National Travel Survey -- "the^argest 
survey of travel activity conducted in the world today" 
collecting detailed information on the volume and character¬ 
istics of American travelers and the nature of their trips, 
including overseas trips to Canada and Europe. ALso, numerous 
private organizations conduct their own market surveys and 
analyses. In 1973, the United States Travel Data Center was 
created exclusively to improve the data base on travel to, from 
and within the U.S. The Discover America Travel Organization 
(DATO) was also formed to deal with the needs of the U.S. 
tourist indu s t r y. 

To facilitate, in the Final Act's language, "the activities 
of foreign travel agencies and passenger transport companies 
in the promotion of international tourism," the USTS organizes 
an annual convention called "Pow Wow," which brings foreign 
tour operators together with U.S. suppliers and helps acquaint 
the foreign organizations with U.S. tourist attractions, hotel 
accorrmoda t i on s and other facilities. Close to one thousand 
travel promoters participate in these conferences annually. 

The USTS also participates in other international tourist meet¬ 
ings such as the International Tourism Bourse, held annually in 
West Berlin. An international symposium was also recently held 
in Washington, D.C., called "Tourism in the Next Decade," in 
which numerous organizations from the CSCE states participated. 

The U.S. Government has also been promoting tourist travel 
to this country by "dealing in a positive spirit with questions 
...connected with the formalities required for such travel." 

Both the Congress and the executive agencies concerned have 
been working to revise U.S. visa laws and procedures to make 
it easier for foreigners to visit the U.S. (See Basket III, 

Visa Sect ion). 

The U.S. has been actively pursuing tourist agreements 
with the Eastern signatory states and has urged the inclusion 
of clauses relating to tourism in various bilateral cultural 
agreements. Such clauses exist in agreements signed with 
Romania and with the Soviet Union ("the parties will encourage 
the expansion of tourist travel between the two countries and 
the adoption of measures to satisfy the requests of tourists 


35. Douglas Frechtling, Director, U.S. Travel Center. 


252 



to acquai^ themselves with the life, work and culture of each 
country." Negotiations have begun on a separate tourist agree¬ 
ment with Poland and on the possibilities for one with the 
Soviet Union. 

As honorary co-chairman of the Tourism Committee of the 
U.S.-USSR Trade and Economic Council, the U.S. Assistant Secre¬ 
tary for Tourism has actively contributed to the work of this 
Corrm ittee. Several cooperative projects the Corrm i 11 e e has 
initiated include an experimental program on reciprocal non¬ 
currency exchanges of travelers, work on uniform tourist 
statistics, and a U.S. proposal on cooperation in hotel manage¬ 
ment and personnel training. 

As part of its multilateral implementation efforts, the 
U.S. has been a notably active member of the World Tourism 
Organization (WTO), headquartered in Madrid, Spain. U.S. dele¬ 
gates have proposed that the WTO draft a tourist bill of rights 
and code of conduct, and have been instrumental in the creation 
of a Facilitation Committee which hopes to reach agreement on 
the outlines for a possible international convention on the 
facilitation of tourism. 

These varied government activities in the field of tourism 
should be encouraged to continue and expand, despite the 
scheduled dissolution of the U.S. Travel Service, with particu¬ 
lar attention to increasing tourism between the United States 
and the Soviet Union. 

Training of Personnel 

This final section of Basket II, "Cooperation in Other 
Areas," requests the participating states to encourage exchanges 
of information and of professional staff and technicians that 
would further the training and advanced training of these 
professional technicians." 

As a way of encouraging U.S. compliance in this area, the 
CSCE Commission recently recommended that the U.S. International 
Communication Agency (ICA) provide the CSCE signatories with a 
special collection of American educational counseling materials 
which include the major reference sources for educational oppor¬ 
tunities in the United States. 


36. Paragraph 14 of the U.S.-USSR General Agreement on Con¬ 
tacts, Exchanges and Cooperation in Scientific, Techno¬ 
logical, Cultural and Other Fields. 


253 




CONCLUSION - CHAPTER 4 


The continued efforts and interest of private firms, 
governments and multilateral organizations have contributed 
to the transforming of East-West economic and scientific 
cooperation from a variable and fragile series of economic 
interchanges to a more stable, regular and growing economic 
interdependence. The Final Act has been an admittedly small 
factor in that evolution. The Act's Basket II provisions have, 
however, provided governments and individual enterprises with a 
well-defined chart of problem areas and suggested remedies for 
these problems, thus spurring the concerned organizations in the 
signatory states to work toward implementation of these sugges¬ 
tions and the gradual strengthening of East-West commercial 
ties. 


Four years is a relatively short time to assess progress 
made toward essentially long-range goals. United States 
implementation of these Basket II provisions has generally been 
exemplary in some areas, sporadic in others and limited in a 
few. Even though the U.S. government plays a minimal role 
in the workings of the economic and trade system, the 
Government has made notable efforts to facilitate the develop¬ 
ment of commercial and scientific relations with the Eastern 
CSCE states. These include the negotiation of two trade agree¬ 
ments and numerous other related commercial agreements; active 
participation in the creation and work of bilateral trade coun¬ 
cils and commissions; dissemination of voluminous information 
on the U.S. economy, the Eastern economies, and specific topics 
of interest to U.S. and Eastern businessmen; the organization 
of trade centers, commercial fairs, symposia and meetings to 
facilitate the work of businessmen here and abroad; the more 
widespread granting of mu 1tip1e-entry visas and commercial 
offices to businessmen from the Eastern CSCE states; the signing 
and funding of cooperative agreements in various fields of 
science and technology; and active involvement in the important 
multilateral activities of such groups as the Economic Commis¬ 
sion for Europe. Again, most of these efforts would have been 
pursued without a Final Act because of U.S. stated interests 
in the expansion of world trade. Taken together, however, they 
comprise an impressive record of compliance with most of the 
major provisions of Basket II. 

In areas where U.S. compliance has been most frequently 
criticized, the government has taken modest steps to ensure 
greater compliance without substantially altering previous 
practices. Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) and government credit 
qualifications still remain in effect, but MFN and government 
credits have been extended and Trade Agreements negotiated with 
Romania and Hungary. Export control procedures remain lengthy 
in certain cases, but recent legislative and administrative 
initiatives have attempted to minimize the procedural difficul- 


254 



ties. Anti-dumping and market disruption legislation is still 
in effect, but the agencies concerned are conscious of carefully 
reviewing and reconsidering each decision on a non-discrimi na- 
tory basis. Eastern businessmen are still, on occasion, denied 
U.S. entry visas for security-re1ated reasons, but the Depart¬ 
ments of Justice and State have tried to streamline and expedite 
the decision-making process. 

The Commission has recommended that U.S. Government and 
private interests continue the positive efforts that each has 
made in expanding their network of commercial and scientific 
interchanges with Eastern CSCE states and enterprises. In 
areas where U.S. implementation could be improved, such as 
export control and visa issuance procedures, the Commission has 
recommended that the relevant government agencies take further 
steps to ensure greater U.S. Final Act compliance. The 
Commission also hopes that the other signatory states make 
similar reassessments and improvements in their implementation 
record. Such constant attention and concern for the principles 
and practical steps outlined in Basket II will help ensure the 
continued success of the "process" which began four years ago 
at Helsinki, as well as the success of the expanding East-West 
economic relationships which began prior to Helsinki. In turn, 
the Commission hopes that economic ties, in time, will con¬ 
tribute to the Final Act's long-range goals of reinforcing 
"peace and security in Europe and in the world as a whole." 


255 


CHAPTER FIVE 


COOPERATION IN HUMANITARIAN AND OTHER FIELDS 

INTRODUCTION 


In Basket III of the Helsinki accords the CSCE states 
concentrated their efforts to give detente a "human face." With 
Basket III, the West insisted that detailed humanitarian provi¬ 
sions be included in a document the East had originally hoped 
would deal only with po1itica1 -security issues. In order to 
reach agreement at Helsinki, the East acceded to a view long 
held by the United States and the Western countries that 
improvement in relations between states must be accompanied by 
improvement in the daily lives of the citizens of the respective 
signatory states. Basket III also recognizes the important part 
individuals have to play in building the mutual understanding 
and confidence that will make detente a successful undertaking. 

Basket III is essentially about international movement 
-- of individuals, information and ideas. It is divided into 
four sections which reflect those three "movement" areas. The 
first section, Human Contacts, covers the specific provisions 
for implementing the principle of freer movement of people by 
reducing restrictions on family reunification and travel. 

Section two expands the principle of freer movement of informa¬ 
tion by outlining specific measures to increase the dissemina¬ 
tion of and access to information. The final two sections on 
the freer movement of ideas contain measures to encourage 
increased cultural and educational contacts and exchanges. 

Because the United States has traditionally imposed few 
barriers to the free movement of citizens, information and 
ideas, Basket III requires few changes in existing U.S. 
practices. This is not to imply, however, that U.S. compliance 
has been above reproach. The United States has been criticized 
both at home and abroad for maintaining visa policies which 
place a difficult burden on travelers from other nations. The 
U.S. government plays a limited role in the nation's cultural 
and, to a lesser extent, educational life. While this ensures 
that individual scholars and audiences have freedom of choice 
in these fields, it has also given rise to complaints that the 
U.S. has not done enough to promote exchanges. 

In scrutinizing the U.S. Basket III record of compliance, 
the Corrmi s s i on has placed special emphasis on criticisms and 
complaints. Since much of the criticism lodged against U.S. 
performance in this sphere has come from either East European 
states, or critics of U.S. policies towards those states, the 
focus of much of this report is on the East-West aspects of 
Basket III interaction. Many of the policies examined here 


256 





focus on the way the United States treats its own citizens. 
This is again a recognition of the fact that individuals and 
their concerns should not be forgotten in the interplay of 
governments and nations. 


HUMAN CONTACTS 

The need to improve the lives of individual citizens is 
most clearly highlighted in the first Basket III section, Human 
Contacts, which deals exclusively with the facilitation of the 
freer movement of people across borders, particularly for the 
purposes of family reunification, family visits, marriage and 
tourism. In detailing these provisions, the Final Act recog¬ 
nizes "the development of contacts to be an important element 
in the strengthening of friendly relations and trust among 
peoples" and commits the signatory states "to develop, with 
the continuance of detente, further efforts to achieve 
continuing progress in this field." 

The United States -- one of several countries which 
insisted on inclusion of these provisions in the Final Act 
-- has always recognized and supported the principles contained 
within them. As a nation founded by immigrants, the U.S. has 
throughout its history affirmed the right of everyone to leave 
any country and return to his or her own country -- a human 
right later recognized in the United Nations' Universal Declara¬ 
tion of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil 
and Political Rights. It is U.S. policy to grant citizens the 
exit documents required to leave and return at will. This right 
is restricted only for specific and sharply limited criminal, 
medical or national security reasons. Previous restrictions 
on travel to certain countries by American citizens were removed 
by President Carter in 1977. Therefore, in this respect, the 
United States is in compliance with the Human Contacts section 
of Basket III. The Commission is not aware of any criticisms 
of U.S. practices in this area from other CSCE countries or 
domes tic sources. 

Like virtually every country in the world, however, the 
United States controls and restricts the entry of foreigners. 
These restrictions have been criticized both at home and abroad 
as impeding the development of human contacts which the Final 
Act mandates and circumscribing the principle of free movement 
which the United States espouses. 

U.S. Entry Policies 

It may safely be said that few single issues concerning 
U.S. compliance with the Helsinki accords have received more 
criticism from a broader range of sources than the one concern¬ 
ing U.S. visa policies, particularly as they apply to citizens 
from Eastern CSCE states. The major focus of that criticism 


257 




as it relates to the Final Act has been on a provision of the 
1952 U.S. Immigration ana Nationality Act which denies members 
of proscribed organizations, including the Communist Party, 
entry into the United States without a special waiver. 

There have been a number of critics of that provision in 
U.S. law. 

-- President Carter: "We are ourselves culpable in some 
ways for ...restricting unnecessarily, in my opinion, visitation 
to this country by those who disagree with us politically" - 
February of 1977 press conference. 

-- U.S. press: "The beginning of a new Administration is 
a good moment to dump overboard the law that prohibits 
Communists from visiting the United States. It was a foolish 
law when it was enacted two decades ago. In recent years it 
has become a constant embarrassment. Worse, it is open to 
exploitation by precisely the people at whom it was aimed." 

- February of 1977, a Washington Post editorial. 

-- U.S. Congressmen: "These sections of the McCarran-Walter 
Act, enacted over the veto of President Truman, are violations, 
not only of the Helsinki Final Act, but also of America's 
traditional commitment to the unfettered exchange of ideas and 
the right to move about freely, without fear of discrimination 
based on past or present political beliefs." - June of 1977, 

Rep. Robert Drinan (D.-Mass.). 

-- Soviet and East European press: "The legalized practice 
in the United States of not giving access to the United States 
to people holding progressive views is not only contradictory 
to the highly publicized Washington statements but represents 
a flagrant violation of the Final Act of the European conference 
which bears the signature of the American president. And what 
is more, ruling circles in the United States, breaking all 
records in hypocrisy, try to accuse other countries of not 
observing the Final Act clauses" - March of 1977, Moscow 
domestic services. 

Other provisions of the Immigration Act have been 
criticised as being contrary to the spirit of U.S. Helsinki 
promises, particularly those dealing with the entry of 
foreigners whose admission may be detrimental to U.S. national 
security interests. While not denying the obvious need for 
such restrictions, critics contend that the present wording 
of the statute is both too inflexible and too broad to allow 
for a fair and objective interpretation. 

The procedures associated with these provisions have also 
been a major source of criticism by both domestic and foreign 
critics. The length and nature of the application forms, the 
often extended delays associated with the application process, 
the frequent need for a personal appearance and interview by 
a U.S. consular officer, the number of visa refusals, the need 


258 



itself for a visa to enter the United States when other 

countries have abolished the visa requirement - all have been 

cited as examples of the complexities of U.S. entry procedures, 
creating obstacles to the free movement of people called for 
in the Final Act. 

The Final Act specifically mandates the participating 
states "to facilitate freer movement and contacts, individually 
and collectively..." in particular "gradually to simplify and 
to administer flexibly the procedures for exit and entry" and 
"to promote visits to their respective countries by encouraging 
... the simplification and expediting of necessary formalities 
relating to such visits." In addition, the Final Act's language 
details the specific measures states should adopt to facilitate 
family visits, family reunification and marriages. These 
include expeditiously issuing entry and exit documents, charging 
acceptable fees for those documents, and favorably considering 
application requests. 

The following section of the report will examine these 
allegations by reviewing the relevant provisions of U.S. visa 
laws, recent practices in U.S. visa formalities, changes that 
have been enacted in either law or procedures since August of 
1975, and recommendations suggested in light of those findings. 
The examination will concentrate on U.S. entry procedures which 
have been criticized as violations of the Final Act. In viewing 
U.S. visa policies, practices and procedures, it must be remem¬ 
bered that U.S. officials must be particularly concerned with 
carefully screening the entry of foreigners -- perhaps more so 
than officials of other countries. The U.S., unlike other 
countries, maintains virtually no internal controls over 
foreigners once they enter the country. Entering foreigners 
are expected, of course, to comply with the specific terms of 
their entry, but no nationwide mechanism exists to enforce that 
compliance. 


U.S. Visa Laws 

In its first one hundred years as a nation, the United 
States encouraged and promoted the unrestricted movement of 
people into the country. The process of controlling the flow 
of foreigners into the United States first began a few years 
before America's centennial when Congress adopted legislation 
excluding aliens for "qualitative" reasons of health, morality, 
etc. Several years later, in 1882, the first general immigra¬ 
tion legislation was passed which barred the entry of aliens 
from certain countries. In 1921, a "national origins" quota 
system was established which limited the number of immigrants 
permitted to enter from Eastern hemisphere countries. In 1952, 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, commonly referred to as 
the McCarran-Walter Act, passed Congress over President Truman's 


259 


veto. It became the basic law -- with significant amendments 
over the years -- governing U.S. entry policies to the present 
day. 


The Act was, to a large extent, a recodification and 
revision of existing immigration laws. But it was severely 
criticized during its passage as restrictive legislation which 
reflected too clearly the times in which it was drafted -- the 
height of the Cold War, the Korean War and McCarthyism. While 
abolishing the provisions excluding immigrants from Asian 
countries, the McCarran-Wa1 ter Act retained the national origins 
quota system until 1965 when amendments to the Act replaced 
the country quotas with hemispheric ones. No more than 170,000 
persons may be admitted in one year from the Eastern hemisphere 
and 120,000 from the Western hemisphere. Since then, amendments 
to the Act have reflected more humanitarian concerns, speci¬ 
fically regarding family reunification and refugee admissions. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) places two types 
of general restrictions on persons wishing to enter the United 
States: numerical and qualitative. The INA also differentiates 
between two types of entering aliens: immigrants (aliens who 
wish to settle permanently in the United States) and nonimmi¬ 
grants (aliens who are granted temporary admission for specific 
purposes). 

As is true in most other CSCE states, regulations governing 
the admission of immigrants are, of political, economic and 
social necessity, more restrictive than those which apply to 
nonimmigrant aliens. Numerical restrictions apply only to immi¬ 
grants and consist of an annual worldwide ceiling of 290,000, 
with a 20,000 maximum from any country. Consistent with the 
Final Act, family reunification is the primary objective of 
these immigration provisions. Within the numerical restric¬ 
tions, for example, visas are distributed according to a seven- 
category preference system which gives priority to specified 
family members (four out of the seven categories, involving 
74 percent of the hemispheric totals). Spouses and children 
of U.S. citizens and parents of adult citizens are not subject 
to the numerical limitations. 

Persons applying for nonimmigrant visas are granted tempor¬ 
ary entry into the United States for 12 specific purposes out¬ 
lined in Section 101 (a)(15) of the INA. Although entry 
restrictions for nonimmigrants are fewer than those for immi¬ 
grants, temporary visitors are subject to greater limitations, 
particularly regarding employment, while in the United States. 


260 


Both immigrants and non inmni g rant s are subject to the 
qualitative restrictions contained within the INA. An alien 
may be refused entry into the U.S. on the basis of 33 economic, 
moral, health, political or security grounds. Some of these 
exclusionary grounds may be excused for irrmigrant applicants 
in particular circumstances, and all the grounds (except (27) 
and (29) involving national security restrictions) may be waived 
for nonimmigrants by the Attorney General at the recommendation 
of the Secretary of State or consular officer. 

While the large majority of excludable grounds deal with 
aliens who are judged seriously ill, criminal, immoral or likely 
to become public charges, Section 212(a)(28) bars members of 
certain proscribed organizations from entering the United 
States. Subsection (c) specifically bars "aliens who are 
members of or affiliated with...the Communist or any other 
totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any 
foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision 
of any foreign state." This section of the Act, together with 
Sections 212(a)(27) and (29), were adopted from the Internal 
Security Act of 1930 in which immigration legislation was used 
as a means of controlling the "communist threat'iqthat figured 
so prominently in U.S. public life at the time. 

Relevant Changes in U.S. Law 

When the INA was first enacted, exclusion under Section 
212(a)(28) was the rule and waivers were the exception. 
Throughout the past decade, the opposite situation has prevailed 
and waivers have been granted more often than refused. As the 
State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs has noted: 
"Consular officers should not hesitate to use the waiver recom¬ 
mendation where appropriate. In practice, consular officers 
are urged to recommend waivers for ineligible aliens unless 
their presence in the United States would be harmful. The 
utilization of this waiver authority in such cases demonstrates 
that our basic immigration policy is compatible with general 
freedom of travel, exchange of ideas, and humanitarian consider¬ 
ations, while at the same time ensuring, through careful screen¬ 
ing, that our internal security is being safeguarded." 

To establish a still more liberal application of U.S. visa 
laws, the "McGovern Amendment" to the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act of 1978 was adopted on August 17, 1977, "for 

377 See~Appendix VII, Chart 4 for a listing of those grounds 

and the number of aliens refused entry on those grounds in 
Fiscal Year 1976. 

38. See Appendix VIII for the waiver language of Section 
212(d)(3). 

39. See Appendix IX for full text of Sections 212 (a)(27) 

(28) and (29). 


261 



the purposes of achieving greater United States compliance with 
the provisions of the Final Act..." 

The amendment provides that within 30 days of receiving a 
non irrmig rant visa application by any alien who may be excluded 
from entering the U.S. solely because of affiliation with a 
proscribed organization, the Secretary of State should recommend 
that the Attorney General grant approval for his or her 
admission, unless the Secretary determines and certifies to 
the Congress that doing so would be detrimental to U.S. security 
interests. The amendment did not change the basic provisions 
of U.S. law. But it did have an important symbolic value in 
demonstrating the gravity with which the United States views 
its Final Act commitments and in supporting the Carter adminis¬ 
tration's policy of encouraging greater movement and contacts 
of people across borders. 

The McGovern Amendment did not touch upon the exclusion 
of possible foreign intelligence agents from the United States; 
these provisions, Sections 212(a)(27) and (29), have remained 
unchanged from the 1952 Act and are not subject to a waiver. 

The Amendment has, however, recently been revised and substan¬ 
tially limited and linked to Final Act implementation. 

Another noteworthy attempt to change U.S. visa laws that 
is in keeping with U.S. Final Act commitments has been a recent 
amendment to the State Department authorization bill, introduced 
by Senator and CSCE co-chairman Claiborne Pell (D.-R.I.). The 
amendment would give the Secretary of State the authority to 
abolish the visa requirement for temporary visitors (up to 90 
days) from selected countries which extend reciprocal privileges 
to American citizens and where the visa-refusal rate is very 
low. Even without this amendment, a large percentage of the 
foreigners legally entering the United States did so without 
the formal required visa. Nonimmigrant visas are not 

required of Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada 
who are natives of Commonwealth countries and British subjects 
who live in certain Caribbean islands. Mexican citizens require 
only border crossing cards -- which serve many of the same 
purposes as a visa. 

Such a legislative change would make it considerably more 
convenient for citizens from several CSCE states to visit the 
U.S., and would be a striking example of U.S. good faith 
efforts to improve compliance with the letter and spirit of 
the Final Act and to realize the Administration's commitment 
to greater freedom of travel. 

These and other provisions of the INA will, it is assumed, 
be reviewed and possibly revised when the Select Commission on 
Immigration and Refugee Policy makes a final report of its find- 


262 


ings and recorrmenda t i on s in late 1980 or early 1981. The 
Conrmission is composed of 16 public, private and Congressional 
members whose mandate is "to study and evaluate...existing laws 
policies and procedures governing the admission of irrmigrants 
and refugees to the United States and to make such administra¬ 
tive and legislative r econnmendat i ons to the President and to 
Congress as are appropriate." One of four particular concerns, 
as detailed in the Corrmi s s i on ' s governing legislation, is to 
"conduct a study and analysis of the effect of the provisions 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act...on the conduct of 
foreign policy." 


U.S. Visa Procedures 

Those agencies responsible for admitting aliens into the 
United States repeatedly emphasize that they must work within 
the limits of U.S. immigration laws. While those procedures 
may appear cumbersome at times, these agencies have attempted 
over a number of years to streamline their admission opera¬ 
tions and "to be sensitive to the international community's 
commitment to freedom of movement and to humanitarian princi¬ 
ples" according to Assistant Secretary of State for Consular 
Affairs Barbara Watson, who testified at a CSCE Commission hear 
ing on April 5, 1979. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides for a "double 
check" system of admission which is essentially controlled by 
two government agencies: The Bureau of Consular Affairs of the 
Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) of the Department of Justice. A foreign national 
wishing to enter the United States must first secure from an 
American consular officer abroad a visa which documents that 
the alien is eligible to enter the U.S. The visa itself -- 
issued by the State Department officer -- establishes pre¬ 
liminary eligibility but does not guarantee admission. After 
arriving in the U.S., the alien must be interviewed by the 
admitting INS official on his or her eligibility to enter and 
the appropriateness of his or her visa classification. 

To secure a visa, applicants must, in most cases, present 
documentation demonstrating eligibility. Obtaining an immi¬ 
grant visa is more difficult and time-consuming than obtaining 
a nonimmigrant visa. The processes involved in both are 
described below. 

Immigrant Visa Issuance 

Section 222 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
details the docunents required for immigrant visa applicants: 
a valid passport or other travel document; certifications and 
any existing records from the appropriate police authorities; 
the applicant's military record, if any; and record of birth. 


263 


The applicant must also fill out a detailed application form. 

In addition, the consular officer must obtain specific documents 
supporting the visa-preference classification being sought, 
such as a preference petition for applicants seeking a family- 
related preference and an Alien Employment Certification for 
an employment-related preference. After the required documents 
are received, the applicant must undergo a medical examination 
and submit to an interview by the consular officer to determine 
his or her eligibility and appropriate visa classification. 

The fees for immigrant visas are standard worldwide and 
have been set at 5 dollars for the application and 20 dollars 
for the visa. These fees have remained unchanged since they 
were first applied in 1952, despite the fact that the costs 
for processing the visas have risen more than three times the 
amounts charged. 

The immigrant visa process is lengthy and time-consuming 
because of the need both to assemble the necessary documents 
and to wait for the availability of visa preference numbers. 

It becomes even more complicated if the applicant is judged 
ineligible under one of the provisions of 212(a) of the INA. 

If an immigrant applicant is or was a member of the 
Communist Party, as is frequently the case with nationals from 
the Eastern CSCE states, his or her ineligibility -- as deter¬ 
mined by 212(a)(28) -- may be overcome only by demonstrating 
that such membership was involuntary or that the applicant is a 
"defector." Involuntary membership must be demonstrated "to the 
satisfaction of the consular officer" by proving that the appli¬ 
cant was under the age of 16 at the time he or she joined the 
Party or that he or she entered the Party only for the purposes 
of securing employment, food or other essentials of living. 
Applications by aliens who claim they are defectors must be 
reviewed by the State Department and the Attorney General to 
determine that the applicant's admission would be "in the public 
interest." 

These checks take time and necessarily delay the admission 
process by several weeks. Assistant Secretary of State for 
Consular Affairs Barbara Watson said at a recent CSCE hearing 
that, "assuming no transmission delays due to staffing short¬ 
ages, a case in which the factual presentation is reasonably 
clear and complete should be completed in four to six weeks 
if it is claimed that the membership is or was involuntary. In 
similar circumstances, a case in which defectorship is claimed 
would normally require about three months to complete..." 

If the applicant is refused a visa for any reason, that 
person has the right to be informed of the legal provision under 
which the visa was refused and the unclassified facts upon which 


264 


the denial was based. All denials are reviewed by a supervisory 
consular officer, and the applicant may request reconsideration 
of the case by the consular officer or the Department of State. 

When they arrive in the U.S., all aliens must be inter¬ 
viewed by an immigration officer at the point of entry to ensure 
eligibility for admission. Anyone refused admission has the 
right to a hearing before an immigration judge whose decision 
may be reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals and 
eventually the federal courts. 

Nonimmigrant Visa Issuance 

Because U.S. visa laws mandate that "every alien shall 
be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the 
satisfaction of the consular officer...that he is entitled to 
a nonimmigrant status" (Section 214(b) of the INA), it is 
incumbent upon the visa applicant to demonstrate that he wishes 
to enter the United States for a temporary visit and will abide 
by the terms of his particular nonimmigrant visa classification. 
Such decisions depend largely on the personal judgement and 
discretion of the consular officer based on all the available 
evidence. In the vast majority of cases involving most CSCE 
signatory countries, applicants must simply complete a visa 
application form and submit it, together with a photograph and 
passport, to the consular officer by mail or, if they prefer, 
in person. If the officer feels there is some doubt as to the 
alien's qualifications to receive a nonimmigrant visa, the 
officer may request an interview with the applicant or may 
request additional documentation to support the applicant's 
eligibility. Specific nonimmigrant visa categories require 
specific additional documentation, such as an approved INS 
petition for temporary workers and fiances. 

Assistant Secretary Watson has calculated that the require¬ 
ment for a personal interview of applicants is waived for 
"between 70 percent and 90 percent of nonimmigrant visa appli¬ 
cants at consular offices in Western Europe and for up to 50 
percent of applicants at offices in Eastern Europe." 

Nonimmigrant visa fees are based on the principle of reci¬ 
procity, as mandated by U.S. laws. According to Watson, the 
State Department "actively undertakes to bring about mutual 
reduction in fees or their outright elimination. Whenever the 
United States does charge a fee for a nonimmigrant visa, it 
is solely because the government of the country concerned 
charges a like fee for an iAnerican traveling to that country." 

On that basis, applicants from the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia 
and Romania are not charged a nonimmigrant visa fee; neither 
are nationals from Western Europe, except certain applicants 


265 


from Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and Switzerland. The U.S. has 
recently proposed abolishing the fee reciprocally for visitors 
from the German Democratic Republic (GDR), Bulgaria and Hungary. 

The time involved in obtaining a visa varies with each 
applicant and the workload of each consular section. Assistant 
Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Watson has testified 
that " non inrmi grant visas are issued as expeditiously as 
possible. Non immigrant applicants who appear in person are 
generally processed the same day." The Department has estimated 
that the average worldwide processing time for nonimmigrant 
visas was 17 minutes in 1975, down from 18 minutes in 1974 and 
1973, and 21 minutes in 1972. It has been decreasing steadily 

over the past three years despite a 40 percent increase in the 
number of applications during that period. 

That waiting period is extended, however, if the applicant 
is deemed to be ineligible under one of the 33 grounds for 
ineligibility set forth in the Immigration Act. Section 212(a) 
(28), which denies entry to members or affiliates of proscribed 
organizations, including the Communist Party, may be waived, 
as noted in the previous section, for nonimmigrant visa appli¬ 
cants. Such waivers have been routinely granted in the large 
majority of cases -- 96 percent in 1975 -- and in all cases 
since 1977. 

The granting of a waiver does, however, require additional 
time and added procedures. The consular officer must interview 
the applicant and must request a waiver from the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service (INS). In some cases, the Department 
of State makes the waiver recommendation to the INS. In all 
instances, cases ineligible under 212(a)(28) must be reviewed 
by the appropriate security agencies of the U.S. Government. 
Recommendations may be made by letter, by an exchange of tele¬ 
grams or by a telephone call. "The procedures may be lengthy, 
although in urgent cases they may be expedited... Every effort 
is made in each case to complete the necessary steps in a timely 
manner," Assistant Secretary Watson noted in prepared testimony 
for a CSCE hearing on April 5, 1979. 

The nonimmigrant visa procedure may also be considerably 
prolonged if an applicant is suspected of ineligibility under 
212(a)(27) or (29) of the Immigration Act -- the only two 
grounds of exclusion under the Act which may not be waived. 

Under (27) an applicant will be excluded if "the Attorney 
General knows or has reason to believe" that he will be entering 
"the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to en¬ 
gage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public 
interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the 
United States." Similar, more specific language is contained 
in (29). 


266 


Most countries have similar restrictions governing the 
entry of suspected foreign agents. Questions have been raised 
over the past year, however, about U.S. Final Act compliance 
in this regard because of a recent shift in U.S. policies 
relating to the enforcement of these laws. 

Responsibility for determining an applicant's ineligibility 
under these two provisions rests with both the Departments of 
State and Justice. The consular officer, upon receiving a non¬ 
immigrant visa application from nationals of Eastern states, 
must request a security name check from the FBI, particularly 
when a waiver of paragraph (28) is required. If the security 
check does, in fact, reveal evidence of an applicant's possible 
affiliation with a foreign intelligence service, the FBI 
generally recommends that the visa be denied on the basis of 
(27) or (29). When there is a difference of opinion among 
agencies as to whether to grant the visa, "in 1976, according 
to the rundown, the FBI's recommendations for exclusion of a 
temporary visitor were overruled (or ignored) by the State 
Department 87 percent of the time; in 1977 they were overruled 
99 percent of the time; and in the first quarter of 1978, they 
were overruled 100 percent of the time." (Washington Post, July 
4, 1978). Since early 1978, however, after Congress passed 
legislation requiring the Attorney General to submit a list 
to Congress of all aliens admitted into the U.S. over FBI 
objections and the Senate Appropriations Committee directed 
that the INS "under the guidance, control and supervision of 
the Attorney General deny entry and enforce expulsion of hostile 
intelligence service personnel irrespective of visas issued 
by, or policies of the Department of State," Justice Department 
decisions have been given greater weight in this aspect of the 
visa-issuance process. In an effort to resolve differences 
between them, the two departments have since established consul¬ 
tative arrangements and have formed a small interdepartmental 
committee to review disputed cases of fact, with final decision 
to be made by the Associate Attorney General. According to 
Assistant Secretary Watson: "The Committee has succeeded in 
developing criteria for adjudicating these cases which have 
markedly reduced the instances of divergent views in subse¬ 
quent cases...Continuing review of divergences as they may arise 
will further refine those guidelines and thereby further reduce 
the number of cases over which the two agencies disagree." 

Only a small number of applicants fall under these provi¬ 
sions. Since January of 1975, the FBI estimates that 13 East 
European and 31 Soviet nationals have been denied entry into 
the U.S. as a result of FBI visa denial requests on the basis 
of 212 (a)(27) and (29)). But those who are affected have 
complained of the delays and uncertainties connected with their 
applications. Former Associate Attorney General Michael Egan, 
in his testimony before the Helsinki Commission, agreed that 
"there have been some lengthy delays in the processing of some 


267 



applications. We have, however, worked out informal procedures 
whereby urgent cases can be handled on an expedited basis." 
Former Deputy Legal Advisor of the State Department Lee Marks 
also testified that "the bulk of cases are handled in a timely 
manner; with the difficult cases, you have delays. We are sorry 
about that, although it is the product of trying to do this 
in a responsible and careful way." 

Criticisms concerning these procedures, however, have been 
raised because of recent visa denials to East European nationals 
who had previously been granted entry permission on several 
occasions, whose families were residing in this country or whose 
presence in the U.S. served important commercial or foreign 
policy interests. Mr. Marks explained U.S. policy on this 
question: "There was a time when the State Department argued 
that in making the judgements that are required under (27) and 
(29), you could balance foreign policy reasons against national 
security reasons. I must say it is the present view of the 
Office of the Legal Advisor that you cannot do this anymore, 
and, in fact, the law says that if you have reason to believe 
that somebody is coming here to engage, even incidentally, in 
prohibited activities, you've just got to keep them out." 

As is the case with immigrant visa denials, nonimmigrant 
visa applicants must be informed of the provision of U.S. law 
under which they were refused a visa. Applicants whose refusal 
is based on paragraphs (27) and (29), however, are not usually 
given the facts supporting the decision on their case because 
the information is classified. 

Relevant Changes in Procedure 

Although the complexities of U.S. admission procedures are 
determined to a large extent by the laws governing those pro¬ 
cedures, the executive agencies involved in the process have 
taken positive steps to simplify and streamline the proceedings. 
The Bureau of Consular Affairs says they "are sensitive to the 
needs to facilitate travel" and are trying, in terms of 
concept and implementation to facilitate that particular need, 
within the balance of other considerations." As previously 
noted, the need for a personal interview of nonimmigrant visa 
applicants may, for example, be waived at the discretion of 
the consular officer and waiting periods for the issuance of 
visas have been shortened, despite a considerable increase in 
the number of applications. To further expedite these 
procedures the Department of State is working with the Depart¬ 
ment of Justice to develop three compatible computerized 
programs: an automated nonimmigrant visa issuance system - 
(ANVIS); a travel document and issuance system - (TDIS); and 
an automated system of alien documentation, identification and 
telecommunication - (ADIT). These systems would computerize 
most of the mechanical processes involved in admission pro- 


268 


cedures and would improve considerably the efficiency of those 
procedures. The ANVIS system is already operating at several 
consular offices abroad. 

The INS is also attempting to expedite its checks of aliens 
at points of entry. Pre-clearance procedures, whereby visitors 
are cleared by INS officials when they depart, have been 
initiated on an experimental basis at several airports abroad. 
The inspection periods at points of entry have already been 
minimized for all entering aliens to an average of 60 seconds 
per passenger, thereby allowing the ratio of inspector to 
arriving passenger to be reduced. In addition, the process¬ 
ing of visa petitions for immigrant applicants has decreased 
to one month in most cases and five months in the more difficult 
one s . 


Cone 1 usion 

Both the administrators and critics of U.S. visa policies 
agree that U.S. admission laws and procedures are complex. That 
complexity must, however, be viewed in the context of the par¬ 
ticular national circumstances which have governed the formu¬ 
lation of those policies. As former INS Commissioner Leonard 
Chapman said in testimony in 1976: "The United States remains 
a large, attractive magnet to people from all over the world 
who seek, not merely to visit, but to work and remain here 
permanently. The high standard of living, the perceived oppor¬ 
tunity to better one's station in life, and the relative ease 
in finding a job, all contribute to the enormous pressure that 
is placed upon the enforcement mission of this Service." 

Such pressures are greater in the United States than in 
most other countries of the world because the U.S. maintains 
virtually no internal controls over the movement of foreigners 
once they enter the country, and numerical restrictions on 
entering immigrants often tempt aliens to enter as visitors 
and remain illegally. Visitor passports are not registered 
by hotel administrators or police authorities. Prohibitions 
on the hiring of foreigners are loosely enforced, thus making 
it relatively easy for an alien to violate his visitor status 
and contribute to the significant illegal alien problem which 
exists in the United States. The ease with which an alien may 
move throughout the country also creates various security 
p r ob1ems . 

These particular difficulties, coupled with the growing 
problem of aliens obtaining fraudulent entry documents, force 
limitations on President Carter's stated goals of liberalizing 
"almost completely travel opportunities to America." They also 


269 


put great pressure on consular and INS officials to closely 
examine noninmnigrant visa applicants to ensure they will abide 
by the terms of their visas. 

Despite these limitations, both the Congress and the Admin¬ 
istration have publicly stated their support of a U.S. policy 
committed to easing travel restrictions to this country, and 
each has attempted, 1 egis1 at i ve1y and administratively, to 
modify existing restrictions and to streamline existing pro¬ 
cedures to meet those goals. In fact, foreigners have been 
visiting the United States in record numbers during the past 
few years. In Fiscal Year 1978, the number of times foreigners 
entered the United States exceeded 272 million and there has 
been a steady increase of visitors Irom all the signatory states 
since the signing of the Final Act. 0 The number of visitors 
from the Soviet Union, for example, has almost doubled during 
the past 8 years. 

These are encouraging trends which provide concrete 
evidence that progress is being made to remove procedural 
obstacles which hinder the movement of people to the United 
States. Nevertheless, there is a widespread recognition within 
the country that more comprehensive changes need to be made 
in U.S. immigration policy. The Select Commission on Immigra¬ 
tion and Refugee Policies has been specifically created to 
recommend comprehensive changes. In view of the criticisms 
and discussion contained in this section, the CSCE Commission 
hopes that the Select Commission will review specific aspects 
of U.S. law in light of U.S. Final Act commitments. 

For example, Section 212(a)(28) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as it presently stands, contains discriminatory 
features which unnecessarily impede the movement of people 
called for in the Final Act. Legislation prohibiting the entry 
of Communist Party members into the United States was a logical 
result of the public mood of the 1950's; it makes little sense 
today, given the United States' international and national 
commitments to the free movement of people. The existence of 
this prohibition in U.S. laws, despite the waiver provisions 
used in virtually all cases, makes the U.S. vulnerable to criti¬ 
cisms at home and abroad. It creates additional administra¬ 
tive delays and procedures with minimal perceived benefits to 
the United States since the exclusion of persons who may pose 
national security risks are adequately covered by other legal 
safeguards. In the case of nonimmigrants, waivers are currently 


40. See Appendix X. 


270 



granted to all visa applicants who may be ineligible solely 
for reasons of membership in a proscribed organization. Never¬ 
theless, consular officers, INS officials and prospective 
visitors must follow the time-consuming process of requesting 
a waiver which is routinely granted. In several instances, 
delays in the process have led to a cancellation of the pro¬ 
posed trip because the meeting the visitor wished to attend 
had taken place in the interim. In most instances the delays 
and additional procedures have fostered unnecessary resentment 
toward the United States. 

In the case of immigrants, waivers may not be granted for 
persons who are voluntary members of the Communist Party. As 
David Carliner, General Counsel for the American Civil Liberties 
Union (ACLU) and noted immigration lawyer, stated in his testi¬ 
mony before the CSCE Commission: "These requirements exalt 
political doctrine above the principle of family reunification. 
Even as to persons who are able to meet the onerous requirements 
of the present law, the procedures are overwhelming and favor¬ 
able decisions are a long time coming...As a result (of this 
law), numerous spouses of American citizens have been faced 
with the alternative of living in separate countries, relieved 
by the temporary visits of ^Anerican spouses abroad, or of having 
the American spouse living, in effect, permanently abroad, 
separated from close family members who remain in the United 
States." This provision also makes it necessary to ask such 
exhaustive questions on the immigrant visa application form 
as question number 30: "List all organizations you are now or 
have been a member of or affiliated with since your sixteenth 
bir t hday . " 

The language of Sections 212(a)(27) and (29) regarding 
national security restrictions of the INA should also be 
reviewed. As former President Harry Truman noted when discuss¬ 
ing the wording of these sections: "No standards or definitions 
are provided to guide discretion in the exercise of powers so 
sweeping. To punish undefined 'activities’ departs from tradi¬ 
tional American insistence on established standards of guilt. 

To punish an undefined purpose is thought control." Associate 
Attorney General Michael Egan has complained of the difficulties 
in executing the law: "We are not permitted under this law to 
take into account the economic interests or the foreign policy 
interests of the United States in making these decisions. I, 
for one, would like that flexibility in this law, which does 
not now exist. It was passed in the early '50's, at a time 
when we were much more nervous about Communist influence than 
the trend is in the country today. But we have serious problems 
of feared retaliation, whether it be damage to some trade nego¬ 
tiations or something else... If we have some discretion in 
the language of this statute, I think it would be helpful in 
the overall interests of the United States and I assure you that 
that discretion would be used wisely by the Attorney General." 


271 


Consideration should also be given to adopting, during 
the 96th Congress, the Pell Amendment which would abolish the 
visa requirement for foreign visitors from selected countries. 
The bulk of aliens who enter the U.S. come from Western 
Hemisphere contries (mainly Canada and Mexico) and do not 
require visitor visas. Unfortunately, the remaining five 
percent includes nearly all visitors from CSCE states (except 
Canada). Consequently, even a partial waiver of the 
nonimmigrant visa requirement appliable to selected CSCE 
countries would be a visible forward step in U.S. compliance 
with the Helsinki Final Act. American Express has estimated 
that visa requirements deter close to 180,000 tourists from 
visiting the United States annually, and the International Air 
Transport Association has stated that "there is no doubt that 
in Europe the development of tourism has been due in part to 
the widespread abolition of visas for tourists." Foreigners 
entering the U.S. without visas could still be cleared or 
checked for eligibility by INS officials either at pre-clearance 
points abroad or at their point of U.S. entry. 

The CSCE Commission believes that the Select Commission on 
Immigration and Refugee Policy should take particular care to 
reexamine and reevaluate Section 212(a)(28) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act. The Select Commission should also seek 
to define the national security standards of Sections 212 (a) 
(27) and (29) of the INA more clearly and consider language 
under those provisions that would allow non-security factors 
to be taken into consideration in deciding visa requests. 

Both the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service should examine ways of streamlining and 
expediting the admissions process to facilitate freer movement 
and contacts among citizens of all CSCE states. Specifically, 
the Bureau of Consular Affairs should continue to seek ways to 
shorten the waiting periods for U.S. visas and to simplify 
the application forms, as well as continue to liberally apply 
the waiver provisions for visiting foreigners who are Communist 
Party members. The INS should continue to expand its preclear¬ 
ance procedures and should look to other imaginative ways of 
easing clearance procedures at U.S. points of entry. 

The realization of these suggestions would bring the United 
States into a position of fuller compliance with the Final Act’s 
Human Contacts provisions and would deflect many criticisms of 
U.S. compliance with the provisions of the Helsinki accords. 

Responsibilities of the Receiving State for Immigrants 

The Helsinki Final Act recognizes that the rights and re¬ 
settlement of immigrants should be of serious humanitarian con¬ 
cern to the participating nations. The last paragraph of sub- 


272 



section (b) of the Human Contacts section of the Final Act 
refers to the corrmi tment s "receiving states" have to persons 
from other CSCE states who immigrate to their country. 
Specifically, the Final Act obliges the receiving states to: 

"...take appropriate care with regard to employment 
for persons from other participating states who 
take up permanent residence in that state in 
connection with family reunification with its 
citizens and see that they are afforded oppor¬ 
tunities equal to those enjoyed by its own 
citizens for education, medical assistance and 
Social Security." 

Soviet critics contend that life in the West -- in 
particular, the United States and Israel -- is hell for emi¬ 
grants. Articles in the Soviet press detail the tragic plight 
of naive Soviet emigrants who, lured by Zionist propaganda, 
foolishly left their homeland and now clamor to return to the 
USSR. Characterizing life for the Soviet emigrants in the U.S. 
as filled with "unemployment, social inequality, humiliation 
and family tragedies," a Soviet commentator alleged that "the 
politicians who advocate emigration from the USSR view with 
indifference the shattered fate" of those who leave. 

This section of the report will attempt to respond to such 
charges by detailing the steps the U.S. has taken to fulfill its 
pledge in the Final Act to guarantee the rights, and ease the 
settlement, of immigrants from CSCE states. It wi11 also recom¬ 
mend action to improve the U.S. performance in this regard. 

The Flow of Immigrants 

In 1977, over 460,000 people immigrated into the United 
States. From 1972 until the end of 1978, over 40,000 indivi¬ 
duals from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe resettled 
in this country. Many were admitted as refugees, defined under 
present law as those who have fled from a communist country 
or the Middle East because of persecution or who have been 
uprooted by natural disaster. 

The rate of Soviet and East European refugees has increased 
dramatically in recent months, as the USSR has allowed more 
Jews to emigrate. An increasing number of Soviet Jews -- close 
to 65 percent -- are choosing not to go to Israel but rather 
to come to the United States. In the first few months of 1979, 
nearly 4,000 Soviets arrived in the U.S. each month. State 
Department sources estimate that approximately 36,000 Soviets 
and East Europeans will resettle in the U.S. during Fiscal Year 
1979 and during the next two fiscal years. 


273 


Because the number of refugees admitted to the United 
States is restricted by law to 17,400 per year, the vast 
majority of Soviet and East European refugees enter the U.S. 
under the parole provision of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act. The parole provision authorizes the Attorney General to 
allow any alien into the U.S. temporarily, at his discretion 
and under conditions he prescribes, in emergencies or for 
reasons in the public interest. While parole itself does not 
constitute permission for permanent resident status, under 
certain circumstances a parolee may adjust his status to that 
of an immigrant -- an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
residence. In fact, most of the Soviet and East European 
refugees are allowed to settle in the U.S. permanently and 
eventually become legal residents. Those who enter the U.S. 
under the 17,400 quota for refugees are known as conditional 
entrants and are eligible for permanent resident status only 
after two years. A permanent resident becomes eligible for 
citizenship in three to five years. 

Rights of Aliens 

Nearly all the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Consti¬ 
tution apply to both citizens and aliens. These include freedom 
of religion, speech, press, the right of assembly, public and 
speedy trial, and trial by jury, as well as the prohibitions 
against unreasonable search and seizure, double jeopardy, and 
se 1 f - i nc r imi na t i on. 

Under both the Fifth and 14th Amendments, the Constitution 
guarantees that no "person" shall be deprived of life, liberty 
or property without due process of law. The 14th Amendment 
further guarantees that no "person” shall be denied the equal 
protection of the laws. According to legal experts, "it is 
clear...that the twin safeguards of due process and equal pro¬ 
tection generally shelter both citizens and aliens..." 1 

The assurances of the Fifth and 14th Amendments are further 
bolstered by the Civil Rights Acts of 1886 and 1964. Referring 
to the 1886 Act, an immigration law specialist wrote: "Since 
the language of the statute relating to 'persons' includes 
aliens, it provides a remedy for persons who.have been dis¬ 
criminated against because they are aliens." * The Civil Rights 


4 1. Charles Gordon & Harry N. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and 
Procedure, Volume I, 1979 (New York, Matthew Bender), 
pp. 1-163. 

42. David Carliner, The Rights of Aliens, (New York, Avon 
Books), p. 130. 


274 






Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against aliens "in consti¬ 
tutional rights, privileges and immunities and assures them 
security of their persons and property. These constitutional 
and statutory mandates mean that aliens in the United States 
are protected against arbitrary deprivation of their property 
and that they are entitled generally to the same procedural 
safeguards as citizens in criminal prosecutions, civil litiga¬ 
tion, and administrative proceedings." 

Emp 1 oymen t 

In general, a permanent resident alien in the United States 
is entitled to pursue any employment or occupation he wishes. 
According to Gordon and Rosenfield, "the resident alien's right 
to earn a livelihood is assured by the Fifth an^l4th Amendments 
and by treaty provisions with various nations." " 

In the past, however, states have placed significant 
limitations on an alien's employment opportunities, excluding 
him from many occupations. These restrictions were not uniform 
and, in many instances, the rationale behind the limitation 
was obscure. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the early 1970's 
that restrictions based on alienage "are inherently suspect" 
and, in effect, invalidated a number of restrictive state laws 
which indiscriminately barred permanent residents from public 
employment and numerous other professions. More recently, the 
Supreme Court has ruled that states may impose narrowly defined 
restrictions on the employment of resident aliens, such as a 
citizenship requirement for public positions which involve the 
formulation and execution of state policy. States may not, 
however, arbitrarily restrict employment opportunities for 
permanent residents. 

Although the Constitution does not outlaw discrimination 
against immigrants by private employers, such discrimination 
is generally prohibited by state and federal fair employment 
1 aws . 

Educa tion 

Permanent resident aliens are on equal footing with U.S. 
citizens in terms of the right to public education. A 1971 
Supreme Court ruling held that discrimination between citizens 
and permanent resident aliens in public educational institutions 
is unconstitutional. 


437 Char 1 es Gordon <5c Harry N. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and 
Procedures, Volume I, 1979 (New York, Matthew Bender), 
pp. 1-163. 

44. Ibid, pp. 1-163. 


275 





Furthermore, refugees are also eligible to apply under 
the regular programs of aid to students in institutions of 
higher education, administered by the U.S. Office of Educa¬ 
tion. These include the guaranteed student loan program, direct 
student loan program, basic educational opportunity grants, 
and supplementary educational opportunity grants. 

Social Security and Medical Assistance 

Aliens in the U.S. are generally entitled to receive 
government benefits, subject to the same eligibility qualifica¬ 
tions as citizens. Alien eligibility for benefits varies in 
accordance with the authority administering the benefits. State 
and local governments, however, may not deny government benefits 
to U.S. permanent residents. The Supreme Court has ruled that 
individuals "lawfully in this country shall abide 'in any state' 
on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under non- 
discriminatory laws." The Court also determined that state 
legislation denying welfare benefits to aliens was unconstitu¬ 
tional "on the ground that such restrictions were a denial of 
equal protection and an infringement of the exclusive federal 
authority to control the immigration of aliens." 

According to the Department of State, "practically all 
basic federally aided assistance programs are available to 
refugees if they meet the regular requirements for the 
program...including aid to families with dependent children 
(AFDC), Medicaid, social services, Food Stamps, and Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI)." In addition, all eligible aliens, 
regardless of their status, may receive some Medicare benefits. 
However, other Medicare benefits are limited to residents who 
are either citizens or permanent resident aliens who have lived 
in the U.S. for five years. The constitutionality of this resi¬ 
dency requirement was challenged, but the Supreme Court ruled 
in 1975 that "it is unquestionably reasonable for Congress to 
make an alien's eligibility depend on the character and the 
duration of his residence..." 

Migration and Resettlement Programs 

Despite the Constitutional and statutory guarantees, it 
is often difficult for immigrants -- particularly refugees -- 
to be in a position where they can take advantage of their 
rights. The process of leaving one's homeland and resettling 
in a new country can be confusing and frightening for any 
individual; for those uprooted by war or natural disaster or 
fleeing persecution, it is especially so. In order to acclimate 
the refugee to American life with as little trauma as possible, 
special services are often required. The United States Govern¬ 
ment, together with various private voluntary agencies, under¬ 
takes to provide these services. 


276 


United States Government appropriations for programs for 
regugee and migration assistance totaled 559.7 million dollars 
for Fiscal Year 1979. This includes the American contribution 
to various multilateral bodies such as the International Corrmi t 
tee of the Red Cross, the United Nations High Corrmission for 
Refugees and the Intergovernmental Corrmittee for European Migra 
tion, as well as the administration of varied refugee relief 
programs here and abroad to assist in the care, maintenance, 
transportation and resettlement of refugees. 

Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM) 

The Intergovernmental Corrmittee for European Migration 
is an agency comprised of 33 member governments which has as 
its principal task the processing and movement of refugees and 
migrants for permanent resettlement. Initially, ICEM funds 
reduced cost transportation for refugees and migrants for per¬ 
manent resettlement. Additional services include medical 
examinations, documentation and the payment of other expenses 
connected with their resettlement. The United States pays one- 
third of ICEM’s administrative budget and approximately one- 
fifth of its operational budget. Since ICEM was formed in 
December of 1931, it has moved a total of 2,400,000 persons 
for permanent resettlement, 500,000 of whom were refugees 
resettled to the United States. The organization expects to 
move approximately 35,000 to 40,000 Soviet and East European 
refugee s in 1 979 . 

United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) 

The general program of the United Nations High Commission 
for Refugees covers refugee assistance activities worldwide. 

The form of assistance varies depending on geographical area, 
but usually involves the provision of international legal 
protection, resettlement and rese111ement-re1 ated services such 
as food, shelter, medical care, education and training. Approx 
imately 80 governments contribute to UNHCR with the United 
States paying nearly 25 percent of the total budget. 

International Corrmittee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 

In addition to its continuing role under the Geneva Con¬ 
ventions of 1949 for the protection of prisoners of war and 
other war victims and its newer programs designed to aid politi 
cal prisoners, the ICRC was given special recognition for its 
efforts in behalf of family reunification as proscribed in 
Basket III of the Final Act. Specifically, the Final Act calls 
on CSCE states to ’’support the efforts of the Red Cross and 
Red Crescent Societies concerned with the problems of family 
reunification." At present, Swiss government contributions make 
up half of the ICRC's budget, while the /American contribution 
is about 15 percent. 


277 


United States Refugee Program (USRP) 

The United States Refugee Program demonstrates the continu¬ 
ing interests of the American people in the plight of persons 
wishing to leave their homeland and in the principle of the 
free movement of peoples. These interests are consistent with 
U.S. commitments to the CSCE Final Act. 

Under USRP, assistance is provided to refugees from commun¬ 
ist-dominated countries in Eastern Europe and Asia. The princi¬ 
pal objective of this assistance program is to facilitate the 
permanent resettlement of the refugees. Services to refugees 
under USRP are provided through U.S. Government contracts with 
various private American voluntary agencies. Among these are 
the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), the International 
Rescue Committee, the Tolstoy Foundation, the American Fund 
for Czechoslovak Refugees, the American Joint Distribution 
Committee, the International Catholic Migration Commission, 
the Po1ish-American Immigration and Relief Committee and the 
World Council of Churches. Services available to refugees 
through these agencies include counseling, resettlement documen¬ 
tation and processing, language training in the asylum areas, 
transportation and reception and placement assistance. These 
services are provided both in the country of first asylum, as 
well as once the refugee arrives in the United States. The 
voluntary agencies, in addition, provide considerable financial 
support from their own funds to the refugee resettlement 
process. 

Domestic Assistance Program 

Since the early 1970's, the U.S. Government has spent 
approximately 20 million dollars annually for the resettlement 
of Soviet and East European refugees in Israel and only a small 
amount for this purpose in the U.S. In recent years, however, 
more and more Soviet and East European emigrants -- 
approximately 65 percent of those coming out -- eventually 
come to the United States. As a result, in 1978, the U.S. 
Congress allocated 20 million dollars for Fiscal Year 1979 under 
the Foreign Assistance and Related Appropriations Act for re¬ 
settlement of Soviet and East European refugees in the U.S. 

As set up by Congress, these funds are dispersed on a 
matching basis to private voluntary organizations through the 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). These 
agencies are then responsible for administering a variety of 
refugee programs, specifically for those coming from the Soviet 
Union and Eastern Europe, including language and professional 
training and employment counseling. 


278 


This step taken by the U.S. Congress is clearly represen¬ 
tative of the U.S. Government's determined effort to comply 
with CSCE Final Act provisions calling for the easing of refugee 
resettlement. In addition, the government resources now avail¬ 
able are extremely useful to the administering private agencies 
which previously had to assume the major financial burden of 
resettling and integrating Soviet and East European refugees 
in the United States. 

The first grants issued under this new program included 
one for eight million dollars provided jointly to the Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) and the Council of Jewish Federa¬ 
tions, Inc. Refugees resettled by HIAS local cooperating re¬ 
settlement agencies are offered the iollowing services: 
financial support, housing, general orientation to life in the 
U.S., family counseling, English training, Jewish religious 
and cultural orientation, vocational counseling, job training 
and job placement. The ultimate aim of the local cooperating 
agency is to assist clients so that they may become productive, 
employed and well-adjusted new Americans. Statistics show that 
the majority (over 80 percent) of HIAS-sponsored clients are 
employed and self-sufficient by the eighth month after arrival. 
Another 10 percent are employed by the end of the twelfth month 
after arrival. A HIAS survey of two of its major resettlement 
communities -- New York and Chicago -- determined that in 1974 
and 1975 only 2.5 percent of its clients needed to receive 
public welfare assistance, exclusive of Medidaid. 

New Measures 

The United States commitment, both public and private, to 
welcoming the homeless to our country and offering help to 
refugees is long-standing. Our responsibilities to immigrants 
from other CSCE states has been -- and continues to be -- met. 
Yet there is room for improvement in organizing these activ¬ 
ities. For example, the practice of allocating funds for 
migration and resettlement assistance on a piecemeal basis and 
creating new programs for specific groups of refugees as a need 
develops constitutes neither a comprehensive nor uniform policy. 
The U.S. Government needs a comprehensive refugee policy in 
order to meet the needs of the growing number of refugees in 
the world. 

The creation by President Jimmy Carter in early 1979 of 
the Office of Coordinator for Refugee Affairs in the State 
Department and the March of 1979 appointment of members to a 
Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy are impor¬ 
tant steps toward developing that comprehensive policy. In 
addition, the Administration, in consultation with the Congress, 
has drafted specific legislation designed to improve the present 
situation. 


279 


Introduced into the Congress in March of 1979 by Senator 
Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and Representatives Elizabeth Holtzman 
(D.-N.Y.) and Peter Rodino (D-N.J.), the pending legislation 
establishes an overall U.S. refugee resettlement and assistance 
policy. Senator Kennedy, commenting on the need for the legis¬ 
lation, said: "For too long our policy toward refugee assistance 
has been ad hoc, with refugees being admitted in fits and 
starts, and after long delays and great human suffering, because 
our existing immigration law is inadequate, discriminatory, 
and totally out of touch with today’s needs. The Refugee Act 
(S. 643 ) will update our law governing the admission and 

resettlement of refugees. It will help insure greater equity 
in our treatment of refugees." 

Specifically, the Refugee Act of 1979 provides for the 
regular admission of 50,000 refugees annually, instead of the 
current level of 17,400. In addition, the proposed law enables 
the President to exceed the level of 50,000 if he specifies 
the extra numbers needed prior to the beginning of the fiscal 
year and after consulting with Congress. In unforeseen 
emergency situations, that level can be lifted and the Presi¬ 
dent, again after consultation with the Congress, can allow 
an additional number of refugees to be admitted. 

This legislation, in the words of Ambassador Dick Clark, 
former U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs, "acknowledges the 
size and diversity of the current refugee population by 
extending the definition of refugee beyond narrow geographic 
and ideological criteria. It essentially adopts the definition 
of the U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees...It 
defines a refugee as someone outside his or her country who 
is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of 
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons 
of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular 
social group, or political opinion. This definition corresponds 
more closely to the situation that we now face." 

Another major component of the legislation deals with refu¬ 
gee resettlement. The bill provides for uniform federal assis¬ 
tance for the refugee resettlement process and extends coverage 
to all refugees entering the United States. It specifies that 
the Federal Government will bear the full cost of resettling 
new refugees for the first two years after their arrival in 
the United States. This assistance will take the form of grants 
to public or private voluntary agencies for the placement, care 
and resettlement of refugees; funds for special project grants 
to assist adult refugees with English language training, voca¬ 
tional training and social services; and funds for special 
educational services for school-age refugees. The proposed 
Act provides for full federal support for a complete range of 
child welfare services -- available until the child reaches 


280 



18 -- for children who enter the U.S. without a close adult 
relative. Other children would be eligible for such federally 
supported child welfare services during their first two years 
in the U.S. The legislation also provides for full federal 
reimbursement to the states for cash and medical assistance 
given to needy refugees during the first two years. 

Another significant aspect of the legislation is the 
elimination of the two-year conditional status for refugees. 
Except for those admitted under the emergency provisions, all 
refugees will enter the United States as legal permanent 
residents from the day of their admission. This provision will 
also help eliminate discrimination against refugees in the job 
market and put them on equal footing with other irrmigrants in 
regard to eligibility for public services. 

Cone 1 usion 

The CSCE Corrmission feels that the proposed Refugee Act 
of 1979, an amended version of which passed the Senate in 
September and is now before the House Judiciary Committee, is 
an important and timely reform and urges its early passage and 
enactment. Furthermore, the Commission urges that adequate 
levels of funding be appropriated to ensure that all provisions 
of the bill can be fully implemented. In light of the 
increasing number of refugees coming to the United States from 
the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, such action would enable 
the United States to better fulfill its responsibilities to 
immigrants and refugees from other CSCE signatories, as well 
as help to relieve the suffering of thousands of individuals 
from both CSCE countries and other nations. 

INFORMATION 


The section of Basket III dealing with the flow of informa¬ 
tion focuses on two related themes. First, in order to further 
improve their relations the signatory states recognize the need for 
an untrarrmeled flow of information among them. It is assumed that 
the knowledge, familiarity and understanding gained through such an 
exchange will lessen tensions and reduce the danger of conflict. 
Thus, the Final Act calls upon signatories "to facilitate the freer 
and wider dissemination of information of all kinds kinds." 

Secondly, the information section of Basket III deals with 
a topic inextricably linked to the goal of increasing the 
exchange of information: the improvement of working conditions 
for journalists. If they are to pursue their work in the most 
efficient manner, foreign reporters must have freedom of move¬ 
ment, both within their host country and across its borders; 
they must have access to a variety of sources, both public and 
private; and they must be free to work without interference 
should their articles meet with official displeasure. 


281 



With these goals in mind, the CSCE states agreed to under¬ 
take measures aimed at easing the travel of journalists in their 
host country and at increasing the opportunities for journalists 
to communicate directly with their sources. They further agreed 
to grant resident journalists multiple entry and exit visas 
to facilitate travel into and from their respective countries. 
Finally, the signatories "reaffirmed that the legitimate 
pursuit of their professional activity will neither render 
journalists liable to expulsion nor otherwise penalize them." 

U.S. performance in meeting Final Act standards in this 
as in other areas by Soviet and East European CSCE states has 
been severely criticized. 

One line of argumentation charges that Basket Ill's 
information provisions oblige the U.S. to import as many 
information materials, such as newspapers and magazines, from 
East European countries as these nations import from the United 
States. 

Because the U.S. allegedly fails to meet this obligation, 
East European states suggest that an unfair advantage is being 
sought. On one hand, Americans use the Final Act to justify 
flooding East European countries with "U.S. propaganda 
materials," but on the other refuse to allow a reciprocal flow 
of Eastern media into the U.S. 

The basis for a second major criticism of U.S. compliance 
be found in the varying interpretations given to Basket III 
information provisions. The Soviet Union and its Eastern allies 
point to Basket III preambular language which notes that the 
participating states have entered into their Basket III commit¬ 
ments out of a desire "to contribute to the strengthening of 
peace and understanding among peoples and to the spiritual 
enrichment of the human personality." As a result, Eastern 
countries insist that all activities in the area of information 
exchange be conducted with a view to promoting these more 
"noble" aims. 

This interpretation gives rise to the only major criticism 
lodged against U.S. compliance with Final Act provisions 
relating to the activities of journalists. Western journalists 
and their publications are repeatedly criticized for printing 
articles which, it is alleged, present a warped and biased view 
of life in the East. These journalists' repeated references to 
human rights violations in Eastern nations is not only unwar¬ 
ranted interference in Eastern internal affairs (See Principle 
VII) so the argument goes, but also part of a concerted propa¬ 
ganda campaign to discredit communist societies in the eyes 
of the world. Consequently, U.S. and Western journalists are 
said to be failing in their responsibility to further the aims 
of the Final Act as enunciated in the Basket III preamble. 


282 


U.S. compliance with the information provisions of the 
Final Act must be examined in the light of three issues. 

First, how accessible is foreign information to U.S. 
citizens? Is there a statistical imbalance that constitutes 
a U.S. failure to comply with the Final Act? Second, is 
the U.S. Government's record of CSCE compliance affected by 
what American journalists write and by what there papers 
print? Finally, how free are foreign journalists in the U.S. 
to pursue their professions without fear of interference? 

Exchange of Information 

U.S. performance in providing its citizens access to 
"information of all kinds" as called for in the Final Act is 
second to none. U.S. policy in this sphere -- grounded as it 
is in the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and 
the press -- ensures that U.S. citizens have access to virtual¬ 
ly any information they desire. The United States Government 
imposes no artificial or political impediments to the import 
and dissemination of printed and other matter from other 
countries, and citizens have the opportunity to read, buy and 
subscribe to journals and newspapers regardless of their origin 
or political orientation. 

This does not mean that there is absolutely no limit to the 
number and types of printed materials which Americans may find 
at their local newsstands. Such materials are distributed in the 
U.S. in accordance with the free market system of supply and 
demand. Private publishers and distributors, who are the impor¬ 
ters and sellers of information products in the U.S., purchase 
such materials only in proportion to the public's demand for it. 
When East European states complain that their national media are 
not widely available in the U.S., they are in effect complaining 
that their material holds little interest for U.S. citizens. 

Distribution problems notwithstanding, any person who 
wishes to read East European publications is completely free to 
obtain them in public and university libraries or through sub¬ 
scriptions. The Library of Congress, for example, makes avail¬ 
able a wide variety of materials from countries of Eastern 
Europe, often in greater quantity than it does materials from 
other signatory states with whom the U.S. enjoys traditionally 
closer cultural and political ties. To illustrate, the Library's 
holdings of Bulgarian newspapers include 32 separate publica¬ 
tions from 20 cities. This compares to 24 French newspapers from 
20 cities. Figures for other East European countries include: 

15 Czechoslovak newspapers, published in four cities; 12 GDR 
papers from four cities; 24 Hungarian papers from 18 cities; 

42 Polish papers from 17 cities; 28 Romanian papers from 16 
cities; and 103 Soviet papers from 17 cities. In addition, the 


283 



Library receives 1,394 journals and magazines from the Soviet 
Union, 918 from Poland and 238 from Bulgaria, to mention a few. 

Probably the most efficient means of obtaining regular 
access to such materials is by using the many opportunities 
available for arranging subscriptions. East European exploita¬ 
tion of this possibility is evident in the direct-mail advertis¬ 
ing campaign the Soviet Union has recently launched for several 
of its English language magazines. Offering "a chance to win 
an exciting, all-expense paid trip to Moscow" and "Soviet-made 
radios, watches and cameras," 200,000 letters have gone to U.S. 
recipients urging them to subscribe to Moscow News a Soviet 
news weekly. Igor Preferensky, Soviet commercial representative 
in charge of the campaign, says the mailing has been successful 
over the past few years in i ncreas i ng. U. S. subscriptions to 
the journal from only a few to 3,000. * 

While the absence of centralized record-keeping facilities 
makes it virtually impossible to determine the exact number of 
subscriptions U.S. citizens and institutions hold to East Euro¬ 
pean publications, an approximation can be made from U.S. Post 
Office statistics. These figures reflect by piece and weight 
count the amount of printed matter sent from and received in 
the United States in any given year. 

Post Office tallies indicate that in most cases the statis¬ 
tical imbalance referred to in East European criticisms is 
either exaggerated or nonexistent. In only two instances, Bul¬ 
garia and Czechoslovakia, does the United States send more 
printed matter than it receives. With two Warsaw Pact nations 
-- Hungary and Poland -- the balance of exchange is roughly 
equal; and from the USSR and Romania the United States receives 
a significantly greater amount of printed matter than it sends. 

The data by country are as follows: 

Surface and Air Printed Matter Volumes for 1977 


Outbound from U.S. Inbound to U.S. 



Ki1ograms 

Pieces 

Ki1ogr ams 

Pieces 

USSR 

349,589 

1,091,767 

1,083,056 

3,741,465 

Bu1 gar i a 

41,337 

136,952 

17,661 

61,595 

Czechos1ovakia 

512,999 

1,716,430 

66,146 

230,508 

Germany (GDR) 

27,768 

94,134 

110,208 

374,064 

Hungary 

156,969 

507,431 

163,334 

586,636 

Poland 

266,424 

779,767 

247,045 

803,977 

Roman i a 

41,686 

128,920 

71,659 

228,724 

4 5. New York 

Times, February 3, 1979. 




284 









P/ease note also that the outbound volume figures for the 
German Democratic Republic do not include airmail volumes, for 
which data are not available. 

While such statistical comparisons may be an interesting 
exercise, they tend to obscure the real issue. While the Final 
Act seeks to facilitate the freer flow of information of all 
kinds, it does not suggest that this flow should take the form 
of government assured statistical reciprocity in the numbers 
of newspapers, books or films exchanged. No international 
agreement can provide newspapers or magazines guaranteed reader- 
ship; it can, however, promote the removal of artificial 
obstacles to obtaining materials in which citizens demonstrate a 
genuine interest. United States performance in this area 
complies fully with the Final Act. 

Working Conditions for Journalists 

In attempting to improve working conditions for journal¬ 
ists, the Final Act focuses on measures to be taken by govern¬ 
ments. Because it is a government-to-government accord, it does 
not attempt to set a standard of behavior for journalists, who, 
at least in the West, are private citizens. Thus, the Eastern 
claim that the Final Act prohibits journalists from writing 
on certain topics has no basis in the text of that document. 

Basket III does, however, require nations to provide 
foreign journalists with as unrestrictive a working environment 
as possible. That the United States successfully meets this 
standard is apparent not only in the openness and flexibility 
of the U.S. news gathering system, but also in the host services 
the U.S. Government provides interested foreign journalists. 

U.S. procedures regulating the movement of foreign 
journalists in the U.S. are determined on a basis of strict 
reciprocity. If foreign governments restrict the movements 
of U.S. journalists in their countries, the United States 
responds by imposing similar restrictions on the countries' 
journalists in the U.S. 

It is indicative of the good relations existing between 
the U.S. and most CSCE participating states that few such 
restrictions remain in effect. In fact, the signing of the 
Final Act in 1975 provided the impetus for the United States 
to conclude with Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria agreements removing 
reciprocal controls on the movement of these countries' journal¬ 
ists. The Soviet Union is the only East European Final Act 
signatory which continued to restrict U.S. reporters' freedom 
of movement. In response, the U.S. has continued to impose 
analagous restrictions on Soviet correspondents in the U.S. 


285 



The United States has also acted -- again, on a reciprocal 
basis -- to facilitate the travel of foreign journalists into 
the U.S. In conformity with Final Act commitments to grant 
permanently accredited journalists multiple entry and exit 
visas, the U.S. and USSR agreed in September of 1975 to issue 
reciprocal one year multiple entry/exit visas. Multiple entry 
visas (the U.S. does not require exit visas) are also extended 
to resident journalists from Czechoslovakia and Poland. 

Although the German Democratic Republic, in 1977, proposed 
the reciprocal issuance of one year multiple entry visas to 
permanently accredited correspondents, GDR's unwi11ingness to 
accredit U.S. journalists residing in Bonn and West Berlin has 
delayed conclusion of an agreement. With correspondents from 
other Eastern participating states, the U.S. continues to 
require limited one-entry visas, a procedure that is most often 
followed when the two countries have not exchanged resident 
journalists. 

Reciprocity also serves as the basis for establishing the 
cost of American visas. While the U.S. preference is to require 
no fee for the issuance of visas to foreign correspondents (a 
system that is in effect with Czechoslovakia and the USSR), 
journalists from some East European states continue, on the 
basis of reciprocity, to be assessed amounts ranging from $3 
to $21. 

Upon entering the United States, the foreign journalist 
is free to pursue his or her profession as he or she chooses. 
Additionally, the U.S. Government tries to facilitate this work 
in a variety of ways, including many not specifically called 
for in the Final Act. The U.S. International Communication 
Agency maintains two foreign press centers -- one in New York 
and one in Washington, D.C. -- which are designed to provide 
a wide variety of services to visiting correspondents. Among 
other things, the press centers set up interviews with represen¬ 
tatives of both the private and public sectors (center staffs 
report few problems in arranging interviews with high government 
officials); arrange visits and tours around the U.S. on either 
an individual or group basis; organize periodic news conferences 
and background briefings by government officials and private 
personalities; and provide a wealth of resource materials. 

In addition, "live" coverage of high level Washington news con¬ 
ferences (those where seating may be limited) is facilitated 
through audio transmissions to the centers. 

Finally, U.S. compliance with the Final Act provision re-- 
affirming that journalists will not be expelled in "the legiti¬ 
mate pursuit of their professional activity" has met little 
criticism. Since the Final Act was signed, only one CSCE 
journalist -- a Soviet TASS correspondent -- has been asked 
to leave the United States. This action was taken in retalia- 


286 


tion for a Soviet move expelling the Associated Press’ Moscow 
bureau chief, allegedly for engaging in illegal currency 
transactions. Prior to his expulsion, however, the AP corres¬ 
pondent had been the target of a press campaign denouncing his 
contacts with Soviet human rights activists. 

RADIO BROADCASTS 


The activities of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty 
(RFE/RL) and the Voice of America (VOA) have long been the 
target of Soviet and East European criticism. The attacks 
against these radios essentially boil down to the general themes 
that U.S. broadcasts to the USSR and Eastern Europe violate 
the Helsinki accords by interfering in the internal affairs 
of those countries through the dissemination of hostile, subver¬ 
sive and slanderous reportage and information and by failing to 
promote the CSCE goal of mutual understanding between peoples. 
Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev personally charged, 
in June of 1976, that the existence of RFE/RL "is a direct 
challenge to the spirit and letter of the Helsinki accords." 

More recently, the Soviet media have increased the attacks, 
emphasizing that the activities of the radios are part of the 
Carter Administration’s human rights offensive and as such are 
an integral part of the "ideological offensive" and "psycho¬ 
logical warfare" being waged against the socialist bloc. More 
detailed charges are also made. According to the Eastern media, 
hundreds of "notorious fascists" are employed by the radios, 
which incite subversive activities, including terrorist and 
other illegal actions. Another corrmon theme which recurs 
frequently is that RFE/RL are still closely linked with the 
CIA. Finally, the presence of RFE/RL broadcast stations on 
the territory of other countries is characterized as an 
infringement of the national sovereignty of those nations. 

Although most of the charges bear no relation to the 
Final Act, a comprehensive examination of the allegations 
produces some needed clarity in this area. First, it should 
be beyond dispute that the radios serve the Final Act's goal of 
achieving freer and wider dissemination of information of all 
kinds, especially in light of the restrictive, controlled nature 
of the media in the countries to which they broadcast. The 
charge that RFE/RL broadcasts interfere in the internal affairs 
of the receiving countries relies on a one-sided interpretation 
of Principle VI of Basket I's Declaration of Principles, which 
is in no way supported by the actual text of that Principle. 

The language of Principle VI clearly refers to armed interven¬ 
tion and acts of military, political and economic or other 
coercion and does not refer to legitimate radio broadcasts. 


287 



RFE/RL are recognized by the world corrmunity as legitimate 
radios. The World Administration Radio Conference (WARC) of 
the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), to which all 
the Warsaw Pact states belong, has assigned RFE/RL specific 
wavelengths on which to broadcast. In his report to the 
Congress in March of 1977, President Carter noted that interna¬ 
tional broadcasting is a key element of United States foreign 
policy and emphasized that "our most crucial audiences for 
international broadcasting are in the Soviet Union and Eastern 
Europe where censorship and controlled media give the people 
of the area distorted or inadequate views of the U.S. as well 
as of crucial events within their own countries and in the world 
at large." 

Radio Free Europe has been broadcasting to five East 
European nations -- Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary 
and Bulgaria -- since 1950. Radio Liberty began broadcasting 
to the Soviet Union in Russian and other indigenous languages 
(presently 15) in 1953. Both organizations originally received 
funding from the U.S. Government channeled through the CIA 
and from some private contributors. In 1971, all ties, finan¬ 
cial and otherwise, with the CIA were severed. Direct Congres¬ 
sional appropriations were provided temporarily through the 
Department of State until passage of the Board for Interna¬ 
tional Broadcasting (BIB) Act of 1973 which provides for funding 
through Congressional appropriations recommended by BIB. In 
October of 1976, RFE and RL were formally merged and chartered 
as a nonprofit educational organization. BIB, formally estab¬ 
lished in April of 1974, has been overseeing the activities 
of the radios since that time. 

RFE/RL differ markedly in origin, programming and function 
from the Voice of America. VOA, as the broadcasting service 
of the International Communication Agency (formally USIA), is 
responsible for presenting well-rounded news coverage as well 
as projecting a balanced and comprehensive view of U.S. insti¬ 
tutions, culture, society and official policies to a worldwide 
audience. RFE/RL, broadcasting solely to the Soviet Union and 
Eastern Europe, devote the bulk of their programming to develop¬ 
ments within those countries or to matters of direct concern to 
them. Evidence that the peoples of the USSR and Eastern Europe 
do not consider the broadcasts of RFE/RL and VOA as an unwelcome 
intrusion in their lives is reflected in the large number of 
people who tune in to these broadcasts. In the course of an 
average week, some 33 to 35 million persons in these countries 
listen to RFE/RL broadcasts. On a typical day, approximately 
14 to 16 million people tune in, many on a regular basis. VOA, 
which is not jammed, reaches about 40 million listeners a week 
in this area. In Eastern Europe, where jamming is less preva¬ 
lent than in the Soviet Union, more than 26 million people 
listen to RFE in the course of an average week, or more than 
12 million listeners on a typical day. In the Soviet Union, 


288 


due to heavy j arrmi ng and to the USSR's own powerful transmit¬ 
ters, RL's listening audience is somewhat less -- about 
6,868,000 (3.8 percent of the adult population) during an 
average week, or 2,200,000 on an average day. 

To ensure professional standards in their broadcasts, RFE/ 
RL are obliged to operate within strict guidelines set forth 
in their program policy guidelines. According to this standard, 
the radios are to espouse no single specific political, economic 
or religious creed. They are to have no relationship to any 
political party or exile organization nor can they identify 
with any opposition groups or organizations located in the 
broadcast area. Broadcasts are to avoid emotionalism, vindic¬ 
tiveness and belligerency in tone and sweeping generalizations, 
propagandistic argumentation and unsupported criticism in sub¬ 
stance. Furthermore, the radios are specifically forbidden 
to broadcast any information which could be construed as incite¬ 
ment to revolt, or as i nf 1 arrmator y. No material containing 
petty gossip or attacks on the personal lives of families of 
government or party leaders is to be used. 

Overall, the quality of RFE/RL broadcasts appears consis¬ 
tent with the guidelines governing the tone and substance of 
the reporting. There have, of course, been exceptions. No 
radio enterprise broadcasting 980 hours a week, as do RFE/RL, 
can avoid making an occasional inaccuracy. Such errors, 
especially in reporting fast-breaking news events, are common 
to all news agencies. 

In an effort to give the Soviets and East Europeans a 
chance to answer the broadcasts they find offensive, and as 
a "civilized alternative" to jamming, John Gronouski, chairman 
of the Board for International Broadcasting, suggested in 1978 
that RFE/RL airtime be made available to officials of the Soviet 
Union and Eastern Europe for response or rebuttal. This 
proposal, however, was not taken up, possibly because it was 
misunderstood or proved too embarrassing. Within 72 hours, 

TASS, the Soviet news agency, dismissed it as a "deliberate 
provocation" and other Soviet and East European sources quickly 
followed suit. The situation therefore remains unchanged. 

There is no objective evidence to support the accusation 
that RFE/RL consciously employ former members of fascist politi¬ 
cal organizations. Admittedly, there appear to have been a very 
few instances in which such individuals inadvertantly received 
temporary employment with the radios but there is nothing in the 
record to indicate that their backgrounds were known at the time 
of employment. By and large, the employees of the radios in¬ 
clude highly trained research and broadcast personnel, and 
skilled emigrees, valuable for their language capabilities. The 
radios are directed by professionals with commercial and public 
service experience. The Board of Directors consists of distin- 


289 


guished people in such fields as journalism, broadcasting, dip¬ 
lomacy and law. The staff includes former executives and staff 
members of almost every major Western broadcast network and 
numerous leading American and West European daily newspapers. 

In the view of many CSCE signatories, the jamming of radio 
broadcasts violates the spirit if not the letter of the Helsinki 
Final Act, the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 
the Montreux Convention of the International Telecommunication 
Union (ITU). However, all of RL's broadcasts to the Soviet 
Union continue to be jammed, while RFE's broadcasts are jammed 
heavily in Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria and to a lesser extent 
in Poland. This is a costly enterprise involving approximately 
3,000 transmitters jamming round the clock at a cost of over 
300 million dollars a year. In 1977, the 23rd annual session 
of the ITU passed a resolution which strongly condemned jamming 
as a flagrant violation of the Final Act. 

The flow of radio broadcasts is by no means one way. Many 
CSCE signatory states maintain official radios. Examples include 
the BBC in Great Britain, Deutsche Welle in the FRG, Radio 
Vienna and Radio Luxembourg. The Soviet Union, however, is the 
world leader in shortwave broadcasting. The USSR broadcasts 
around the world for about 2,000 hours a week in 84 languages. 
Radio broadcasts directed toward the U.S. from the Soviet Union 
include more than 60 hours a week in English and additional 
hours in Ukrainian, Lithuanian and Armenian. Regardless of 
the frequently blatant propaganda content of many of these 
broadcasts, no Western government, including the U.S., has ever 
jammed them. In light of this extensive activity, the Soviet 
and East European claim that foreign broadcasting constitutes 
interference in internal affairs takes on a hollow ring. 

In addition, Soviets have from time to time intimated that 
the presence of RFE/RL transmitters on the territory of other 
states is an infringement of the national sovereignty of 
the countries involved. However, this allegation overlooks 
the fact that each of the sovereign countries involved has 
voluntarily admitted these transmitters to its territory. 

A good example of the U.S. attitude to broadcasts of other 
nations in light of the Helsinki Final Act is the decision of 
radio station WSDR in Sterling, Ill., to carry the Radio Moscow 
program, "Moscow Ma i1 bag," hosted by Joe Adamov. This show 
will be broadcast on a weekly basis and consists of a series 
of human interest stories, including criticism of the way the 
U.S. press handles news about Soviet dissidents. 

Originally, it was feared that WSDR would be unable to 
broadcast the Radio Moscow material because of a U.S. regulation 
requiring registration of a foreign agent. The 1934 Federal 
Communications Act does not permit foreign agents to hold a 


290 


U.S. radio license. The issue was settled positively when the 
Justice Department ruled that, since the Radio Moscow programs 
were being provided free, WSDR could not be considered a 
"foreign agent." WSDR is only one of about 400 stations in the 
U.S. which receive Radio Moscow material. 

The openness of the U.S. to printed and broadcast informa¬ 
tion from abroad, as well as the ease and freedom with which 
foreign journalists pursue their profession in the United 
States, attests to the high quality of U.S. compliance with 
CSCE information provisions. Criticism of U.S. performance 
in this sphere has come only from a few sources and even then 
it has been based largely on exaggerated charges and distorted 
interpretations of the Final Act. 

Consequently, the Commission finds that the U.S. government 
is in essential compliance with the information provisions of 
the Final Act. 


CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGES 

The Final Act's provisions on cultural and educational 
exchange call for increased personal and institutional contacts 
by artists, students and scholars with their counterparts in 
other CSCE states. It also calls for increased access to one 
another's cultural life. Sections Three and Four of Basket 
III outline the basic goals contained in the Final Act in the 
areas of culture and education: 

"The participating states...disposed in this spirit 
to increase substantially their cultural exchanges... 
jointly set themse1ves...to promote access by all to 
respective cultural achievements (and) to develop 
contacts and cooperation among persons active in the 
field of culture. 

"The participating states (are) prepared to facilitate 
...the further development of exchanges of knowledge 
and experience as well as of contacts... among persons 
engaged in education and science." 

The cultural and educational sections of the Final Act 
also contain qualifying language which gives each state flexi¬ 
bility in CSCE implementation, shielding them from obligations 
-- moral, ideological, financial -- which they cannot meet. 

For example, the Final Act recognizes the limited nature of 
Western governments' participation in their nations' cultural 
life when it calls upon them only to 'promote' or 'encourage' 
greater exchanges of books, films and other cultural materials. 
By the same token, the Eastern practice of conducting exchanges 


291 



on the basis of governmental agreements is acknowledged by 
language calling for the conclusion, "where appropriate," of 
"agreements on a bilateral or multilateral basis." 

The difference in cultural systems and attitudes which 
these formulations reflect lies at the heart of the charges 
Eastern CSCE states have lodged against U.S. compliance in this 
sphere. At the Belgrade CSCE review meeting, Eastern delega¬ 
tions claimed that in the exchange of cultural items (as in 
that of information materials) the U.S. exported more than it 
received. As a consequence, Eastern publics are better 
acquainted with U.S. and Western books, films and other cultural 
items than are Western publics with Eastern culture. This 
situation has been alleged to demonstrate a U.S. failure to 
meet its Helsinki commitments. 

In the education area, Eastern states have criticized both 
the lack of financial resources available for educational 
exchange activities and U.S. performance in meeting Final Act 
commitments to foster foreign language and international 
studies. In view of these circumstances, Eastern states have 
asserted that the United States should be doing more to 
"promote" and "encourage" exchanges. 

The nature of these charges draws attention to the non¬ 
governmental character of the U.S. cultural and -- to a lesser 
degree -- educational system. Culture in the United States 
generally is a matter of individual taste and selection -- a 
private sector activity. While the role of government is some¬ 
what greater in the educational field (particularly that of 
state and local government in primary and secondary education) 
the type of educational exchange programs which the Final Act 
stresses fall largely within the purview of the private sector. 
Therefore, the Federal Government can truly do little more than 
"promote, encourage" and try to persuade private groups, firms 
and state and local governments to pursue various exchange 
activities. 

Role of the U.S. Government 


The primary agent for cultural and educational affairs 
within the U.S. Government is the International Communication 
Agency (ICA). Formed in April of 1978 by the consolidation 
of the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural 
Affairs (CU) and the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), ICA's 
premise, to quote President Carter, is "that it is in our 
national interest to encourage the sharing of ideas and cultural 
activities among the people of the United States and the people 
of other nations." In establishing the new agency, the 
President gave it five objectives: 


292 



"1. To encourage, aid and sponsor the broadest possible 
exchange of people and ideas between our country and other 
nations... 

"2. To give foreign peoples the best possible 
understanding of our policies and our intentions, and sufficient 
information about American society and culture to comprehend 
why we have chosen certain policies over others... 

"3. To help insure that our government adequately 
understands foreign public opinion and culture for policy-making 
purposes, and to assist individual Americans and institutions 
in learning about other nations and their cultures. 

"4. To assist in the development and execution of a 
comprehensive national policy on international communciations, 
designed to allow and encourage the maximum flow of information 
and ideas among the peoples of the world. Such a policy must 
take into consideration the needs and sensitivities of others, 
as well as our own needs. 

"5. To prepare for and conduct negotiations on cultural 
exchanges with other governments, aware always that the most 
effective sharing of culture, ideas and information comes 
between individual people rather than through formal acts of 
governments." 

Two other federal bodies -- the National Endowment for 
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities -- also 
play a major role in the cultural and educational life of the 
United States. However, these agencies have traditionally been 
involved in the support of creative and intellectual endeavors 
within the U.S. Until recently, the legislation which created 
NE/. did not provide for that body's participation in interna¬ 
tional programs and projects. In 1976, however, Congress, in 
growing recognition of the importance of international coopera¬ 
tion as encouraged by the Final Act, broadened NEA's mandate 
to include international arts activities. 

The National Endowment for the Humanities, on the other 
hand, has traditionally played a more active role in 
facilitating international educational activities. In the last 
six months, the Endowment has supported a variety of 
international activities, including a Russian art exhibition; 
a translation of Czech literature; the microfilming of Georgian 
archival materials; and a series of workshops for Washington 
state educators entitled, "Civic Issues in the Light of European 
Expe rience." 

Finally, the Office of Education (OE) in the Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare, provides funds and grants 
in support of international study and research projects. OE 
monies support area studies centers in various universities 
and make possible the work of individual scholars. 


293 


Funding 


Critics of U.S. compliance have charged that the United 
States fails to provide adequate financial support to Eastern 
exchange programs and activities. In fact, such detractors 
have noted that overall funding levels have not increased but 
decreased since the Final Act was signed in 1975. 

While it is true that U.S. Government support for the 
exchanges did experience a temporary cutback in 1976, the trend 
since that time has been decidedly positive. Budget figures 
for the U.S. International Corrmun i ca t i on Agency (which is 
primarily responsible for supporting exchanges) show that funds 
for East European programs rose roughly one and one-half million 
dollars above previous levels in Fiscal Years 1978 and 1979. In 
addition, in 1978, Congress -- citing expanded U.S. commitments 
under the Helsinki accords -- directed the President "by a 
process of gradual expansion during the four year period 
beginning October 1, 1979, to increase significantly the 
financial resources expended annually by the International 
Communication Agency for exchange of persons activities." 

Charges that the United States is providing increasingly 
less support for exchange activities are often provoked not by 
decreases in government spending, but by a reduction in monies 
available from another traditional source of funding -- private 
foundations. Hard-hit by investment losses and motivated by 
a desire to diversify their activities, the foundations have 
withdrawn support from some of the United States largest private 
exchange programs. Although the U.S. Government has increased 
its funding in an effort to compensate for these reductions, 
administrators have nonetheless been forced to seek other, often 
less generous, sources of support. Given the non-governmental 
nature of these exchange programs, the search for non-govern¬ 
mental sources of funding must continue. On balance, however, 
the U.S. Government, with its efforts to sustain these private 
programs, has exhibited a commitment to implementing the Final 
Act. 


Nature of the Exchange Relationship 

U.S. cultural and educational exchanges with CSCE countries 
fall primarily into two categories. Relations with West European 
states and, to a lesser extent, with Poland and Yugoslavia, 
are conducted in the absence of formal agreements and with a 
maximum of flexibility and private initiative. With some East 
European CSCE states, however, cultural relations are conducted 
on the basis of carefully monitored bilateral agreements. While 
the U.S. favors the former mode of interaction, viewing it as 
the more normal, open means of exchange (and thus more in con¬ 
formity with the ultimate intent of the Final Act), it also 
recognizes the utility of formal agreements in developing ex¬ 
change relations with certain CSCE countries. Thus, the United 


294 


States has entered into some type of formal exchange relation¬ 
ship with most East European CSCE states. While two of these 
agreements -- with the Soviet Union and Romania -- predate the 
signing of the Final Act, the level of exchange activity with 
each has intensified significantly since. Academic exchanges 
with the Soviet Union, for example, have roughly doubled in 
the post-He 1sinki period. 

In other cases, the Final Act has served as a catalyst 
for the conclusion of formal agreements where none existed 
before. The spring of 1977 saw the completion of negotiations 
on a soon-to-be-ratified agreement establishing formal cultural 
and educational ties with Hungary; and in March of 1978, the 
first bilateral exchange agreement between the U.S. and Bulgaria 
entered into force. Although similar negotiations were 
undertaken with Czechoslovakia, these talks stalled just short 
of agreement. 

According to State Department officials, the Final Act 
was also a positive factor in establishing cultural relations 
with the German Democratic Republic. In 1976, the United States 
proposed that a bilateral exchange program be developed, to 
which the GDR responded favorably. The result has been a 
significant development of exchanges with this East European 
signa tor y. 

Cultural Exchanges 

In accordance with its Final Act obligations, the United 
States has sought to support exchanges which not only bring 
American citizens into personal contact with their counterparts 
in other CSCE states, but which foster also better awareness 
of the respective cultures of other states. While such contacts 
have always been fairly easily and spontaneously carried out 
between Americans and West Europeans, there have been few oppor¬ 
tunities outsiue the context of formal programs for Americans 
and East Europeans to meet. The large number of private U.S. 
groups and institutions which have become involved in East-West 
exchange programs provides at leasj^a partial measure of the 
successful impact of this support. Hence, the support the 
United States gives to programs of East-West exchange forms 
a particularly important element of U.S. CSCE compliance. 

Exchange of Persons 

In the area of "citizens" exchange -- encouraged by the 
Final Act under a commitment to involve the broadest possible 
social groups in exchange activities -- the United States has 
facilitated meetings between U.S. and Eastern professional, 


46. See Appendix XI* 


295 




youth and civic groups. U.S. Government support has assisted 
the Columbia University Translation Center in hosting Soviet 
translators and has made possible exchanges between the American 
Bar Association and Soviet jurists. The National 4-H Council 
has received government funds for its exchanges of young 
American, Hungarian, Polish and Soviet farmers, and the YMCA 
and American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL) have 
used government support to exchange delegations with the USSR's 
Committee of Youth Organizations. ACYPL has also participated 
in exchanges with counterparts in Poland and Romania. Coopera¬ 
tion between persons active in the arts has also figured promin¬ 
ently in U.S. Government supported exchanges. Writers, artists, 
poets, filmmakers and musicians have received grants enabling 
them to establish contacts and working relationships with East 
European counterparts. 

The development of contacts between U.S. and Soviet theater 
directors provides a good example of the type of fruitful 
cooperation the U.S. Government has successfully promoted since 
the Final Act was signed in 1975. A government sponsored visit 
of San Francisco's American Conseratory Theatre to Moscow in 
1975 led Soviet and American directors to begin an active round 
of exchanges. As a result, Soviet and American directors have 
worked in one another's theaters and there has been an upsurge 
in the frequency with which each country produces works from 
the other. As an outgrowth of these contacts, the entire 
company of the Moscow Arts Theatre is expected to visit the 
United States in 1980, and the American musical, "A Chorus 
Line," will have its premiere on Soviet and East European 
stages. Under an agreement being worked out between the Soviets 
and U.S. impressario Joseph Papp, "A Chorus Line" will be 
followed by an exchange of 10 contemporary Soviet and American 
productions. In all of these contacts, the U.S. Government has 
played an important role, providing travel funds and communica¬ 
tion services. 

The mix of private initiative and government support which 
the theater exchange reflects, represents the type of natural 
cultural relationship which the United States believes the Final 
Act seeks to encourage. This is a relationship that responds 
to audience appreciation and which is marked by the active invol¬ 
vement of the parties directly concerned -- be they theater 
directors or young farmers. 

Performing Arts and Cultural Exhibitions 

Such qualities are characteristic of exchanges not only 
of performing artists, but also of cultural exhibitions. 

Perhaps not coincidentally, these have also been two of the 
most active areas of post-He 1sinki, East-West cultural coopera¬ 
tion. Too numerous to be listed in entirety, a few examples 


296 


of such exchanges will give some indication of the wide exposure 
Eastern culture has received in the United States during just 
a few months in late 1978 and early 1979. 

-- Michigan State University's Seventh International Season 
featured a number of East European performers, including pianist 
Andrzej Dutkiewicz from Poland; organist Ferdinand Klinda and 
pianist Klara Havlikova from Czechoslovakia; and pianist Nelly 
Akopian from the USSR. Hungarian cellist Csaba Onczay, Polish 
conductor Jerzy Salwarowski and Romanian conductor Emil Simon 
participated, and "The Whirlpool," an opera by Czechoslovak 
composer Eugen Suchon, was performed. 

-- Under the sponsorship of the Smithsonian Institution's 
Traveling Exhibition Service, a Hungarian exhibit entitled "Art 
Nouveau" was presented in 10 U.S. cities between September of 
1978 and the spring of 1979. 

-- New York City was host to a Romanian Festival of Arts, 
held December 12-16, 1978. The program, which included films, 
folk ensembles, the Romanian Madrigal Choir and vocal soloists, 
was sponsored by the Romanian Embassy, the Romanian American 
Cultural Foundation of New York and the Concert Arts Society. 

-- Early 1979 saw Poland's avant-garde company, "The 
Cricot-Two Theater," make its U.S. debut at New York's La Mama 
Theater. 

-- "Splendor of Dresden: Five Centuries of Art Collecting, 
an Exhibition from the German Democratic Republic" drew critical 
acclaim and large crowds in its tour of the U.S. during 1978 
and 1979. The exhibit, the first major GDR presentation of 
this type to be brought to the U.S., was also the subject of 
a public television documentary shown throughout the United 
States. 

-- "Festival of Russian Dance," a collection of several 
Soviet folk troupes from Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldovia 
arrived in January of 1979 for a 72-day tour of the U.S. Under 
the direction of Mikhail Godenko, director of the Krasnoyarsk 
Dance Company of Siberia, the troupes included 115 dancers. 

-- Romanian theater director Liviu Ciulei directed Molieres 
"Don Juan" at Washington's Arena Stage in April of 1979. 

-- April of 1979 saw a flourish of Bulgarian cultural 
activity in the United States. Bulgarian visitors included a 
folk dance ensemble, the Apri1ov-Palauzov dancers from Gabrovo; 
Emil Tchakarov, who conducted the National Symphony Orchestra 
for three concerts in Washington, D.C.; and mezzo-soprano 
Marianna Paunova, who sang in "Eugene Onegin" at the Metro¬ 
politan Opera. 

-- A Bulgarian Cultural Month, held in Pittsburgh from 
March 24 through April 29, 1979, featured Bulgarian music, 
films, exhibits and lectures. Participating were the Bulgarian 
National Folk Ensemble "Pirin," pianist Pavlina Dokovska and 
Bulgarian Fulbright Lecturer Dr. Lyubomira Parpulova. Nine 
Bulgarian films were shown, and four exhibits on Bulgarian 
culture displayed. 


297 


-- At the invitation of the U.S. Gymnastics Federation, 
a 14-member Soviet gymnastics team visited the United States 
in March of 1979 for 10 days of exhibitions. 

__ a 44-member Soviet Circus Company opened a three-month 
U.S. tour in February of 1979. 

-- The Czechoslovak mixed media presentation by the 
National Theater of Prague, entitled "The Enchanted Circus" 
(billed in the U.S. as "Coque1ico"), opened a six-week run at 
New York City’s 22 Steps during February of 1979. 

-- The Bulgarian Philharmonic Orchestra performed 40 
concerts on a nationwide tour during October and November of 
1978 . 

-- Soviet folk singer Vladimir Vysotsky made his American 
debut during January of 1979 in New York City. He later 
performed in Boston, New Jersey and Philadelphia. 

-- January of 1979 also saw the Hungarian "Rajko" Gypsy 
Orchestra, Dancers and Singers begin a nationwide tour. 

-- The 21-member Polish National Acrobatic Team began a 
national tour in January of 1979. 

-- A Soviet company, "Stars of the Bolshoi and 
Stanislavsky Ballet Theaters," toured the U.S. for two weeks 
during December of 1978, performing in New York City, Utica, 
Tallahassee, Pittsburgh and Chicago. 

-- An exhibition of contemporary Bulgarian paintings was 
shown in Washington, D.C. during December of 1978. 

-- An exhibition of Polish posters opened its U.S. tour 
at South Bend, Indiana in October of 1978. 

-- "Treasures from the Kremlin: An Exhibition from the 
State Museums of the Moscow Kremlin" opened May 19, 1979, at 
the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The show -- the 
fourth in a 1974 cultural exchange agreement between the 
Metropolitan and the museums of the Soviet Union in 1974 -- 
was accompanied to the U.S. by a sister exhibit from Leningrad's 
Hermitage Museum. The Leningrad exhibit, which opened in 
Washington's National Gallery, included the Soviet Union's only 
painting by master Leonardo da Vinci. 

East European ethnic groups have made a major contribution 
to this type of activity, frequently sponsoring folk festivals, 
art exhibitions and cultural presentations from their native 
lands. Such groups have also turned their attention to another 
aspect of educating Americans about East European ethnic 
cultures -- discouraging denigrating portrayals of various 
ethnic and racial cultures in entertainment media. Long plagued 
by the phenomenon known as 'Polish jokes,' Polish Americans 
have become particularly active in this sphere, spurred on in 
part by the recent release of the movie "The End." This film's 
use of Polish jokes was found to be offensive not only by many 
Americans, but by the Polish Government as well. 


298 


Unfortunately, while the U.S. Government does not condone 
such questionable humor, it has no legal authority to prevent 
its use. The Commission believes, however, that disparaging 
portrayals of racial or ethnic groups -- whether in jokes or 
in motion pictures -- reflect a cultural ignorance and 
insensitivity which the Final Act seeks to dispell. The 
Commission hopes that private efforts to eradicate such 
phenomena will continue and that they will be successful. 

Pub 1is hing 

Charges that U.S. publishers do not publish as much East 
European literature as these states do U.S. literature, appear 
to be fairly accurate. Certainly the national literatures of 
Bulgaria or Romania, for example, are little known in the U.S. 

The reasons for this apparent neglect, American publishers 
maintain, can becfound in the lack of success such publications 
enjoy in the highly competitive U.S. book market. At the same 
time, publishers have shown greater interest in Eastern book 
markets since the Final Act was signed in 1975. Evidence of 
this interest can be seen in such developments as the Associa¬ 
tion of American Publishers' (AAP) decision in 1977 to establish 
a Trade with Eastern Europe Committee or the prospective parti¬ 
cipation of 153 U.S. publishers in the September of 1979 Moscow 
Book Fair. 

The role of the U.S. Government in this type of activity 
has increased substantially since the Final Act was signed in 
1975. In 1976 and 1977, for example, the Government provided 
assistance to the AAP in arranging meetings with Soviet 
publishers -- contacts which have led to the conclusion of a 
number of publishing contracts. The Government also funded 
the travel of a delegation of Association of American University 
Presses (AAUP) representatives to the 1977 Moscow Book Fair 
and in subsequent visits to Poland, Hungary and Romania. With 
government support, the AAUP has announced its inention to host 
return delegations from these countries. 

International Communication Agency support has also been 
instrumental in broadening contacts between American and East 
European authors, in exchanges that have a direct impact on the 
level of American awareness of, and interest in, East European 
literature. For example, ICA assisted the University of Kansas 
in successful efforts to expand its writers' exchange program 
with the USSR. Similar writers' exchange programs at the 
University of Iowa and Oberlin College have brought authors 
from Bui garia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and 
the GDR to the United States. 


299 


Given the recent nature of most of these contacts, however, 
it is not surprising that significant purchases of Eastern 
literature have not yet appeared to erase the statistical 
imbalance Eastern states charge exists. The mere fact that 
the U.S. publishing business is so much larger than those in 
Eastern Europe will undoubtedly serve to preserve some sort 
of statistical inequality for years to come. On the other hand, 
where publishing contacts have been particularly active -- as 
between AAP members and Soviet publishers -- significant 
progress has been made. 

Since the Final Act was signed, for example, several U.S. 
firms have announced plans to publish works by leading 
contemporary Soviet authors, among them Vasily Shukshin and 
Fasil Iskandr. Harper and Row has signed contracts to publish 
Troepolsky's White Bim -- Black Ear (also a motion picture 
recently nominated for a U.S. Academy Award) and Bulat 
Okudzhava's Journey of the Dilletantes. Farrar, Straus and 
Giroux will be publishing an anthology of contemporary Soviet 
prose, including works by Abramov, Shukshin, Bitov, Bogomolov, 
Tendryakov and Rasputin. Simon and Schuster has printed Leonid 
Brezhnev's official biography as well as another Brezhnev work. 
Schuster has also contracted to publish two works by Yuri 
Trifonov, Another Life and The House on the Embankment. 

Trifonov, commenting on this rash of publishing activity, 
has noted that American publishers seem to be discovering 
official Soviet authors, a development he attributes to the 
spirit of Helsinki. 

Although U.S. publishers appear to be displaying an ever 
livelier post-Helsinki interest in works by Soviet authors, 
complaints persist that the 50 or so Soviet titles published 
yearly in the U.S. seem meager in comparison with the 200 plus 
American titles put out in the USSR in the same period. 

However, Professor Leo Gruliow, in a study prepared for the 
International Communication Agency, urges a new perspective 
on the problem. 

Pointing to the differences between the U.S. and Soviet 
book markets, Professor Gruliow notes that when a book is 
published in the Soviet Union, it is normally available only 
as long as the original printing lasts. Therefore, a listing of 
new titles published in the USSR in a given year is, in effect, 
a listing of the total number of titles available. American 
publishers, on the other hand, are more likely to maintain books 
in print for long periods, with the result that a listing of 
one year's new titles usually accounts for only a small propor¬ 
tion of the total market. 


300 






When allowing for this discrepancy in publishing practices, 
Professor Gruliow finds that in 1978, 230 American works were 
available to Soviet readers, as compared to 494 Soviet and 
Russian works available to American readers. Moreover, this 
count of 494 titles does not reflect the 354 works the Soviets 
themselves have translated and made available to Americans 
through just one of a number of Soviet book outlets operating 
in the U.S. In contrast, Soviet readers have no access to 
American works in the original. There are no foreign book 
outlets and foreign publications cannot be ordered directly. 

Thus, two conclusions can be reached regarding the status 
of U.S. compliance with CSCE commitments to increase book 
exchanges. First, the Final Act calls on CSCE governments to 
'promote' and 'encourage' publishing activities as well as to 
provide unrestricted access to the written products of other 
CSCE states. Both of these goals have been actively pursued 
by the U.S. Government. The International Communeiation Agency 
has facilitated meetings and contacts among U.S. and Eastern 
publishers and authors. The National Endowment for the Human¬ 
ities, in a slightly different approach, has funded actual 
translations of Eastern scholarly and literary works. Together 
the two agencies have ensured that U.S. support of publishing 
activities has been that required by the Final Act. 

The second part of the Final Act's directive -- to provide 
access to other CSCE states cultural products -- presents a 
more complex problem. Eastern states, noting that U.S. 
publishers purchase fewer East European works than East European 
publishers do American works, assert that the U.S. is failing 
to provide its citizens access to Eastern products. On the 
other hand, the U.S. imposes no restrictions on what its 
citizens may buy or read. In addition, the American book market 
is open to those with the desire and the resources to exploit 
it. As a result, it can be fairly claimed that U.S. performance 
in providing access is also in conformity with the Final Act. 

Films 

The exchange and greater dissemination of films remains 
one area in which U.S. CSCE implementation does not appear to 
rival that of Eastern states. Soviet and East European films, 
although now appearing in U.S. cinemas in greater numbers than 
a few years ago, generally continue to hold little appeal for 
U.S. audiences. American films and TV programs, on the other 
hand, enjoy considerable popularity throughout the world. This 
state of affairs has led again to cries of statistical 
imbalance, and to charges of U.S. failure to comply with the 
CSCE Final Act. 


301 


Wh ile, in general, there does appear to be s ome substance 
to these charges, the problem is somewhat more complex than 
depicted. The diversified nature of film distributing in the 
United States makes it virtually impossible to obtain an 
accurate accounting of the total numbers of Soviet and East 
European films available for theater showing in the U.S. 

Partial tabulations indicate, however, that the problem is not 
that such films are unobtainable, but that, for commercial 
reasons, major theaters are unwilling to screen them. This 
is a result, Easterners say, of the inadequacy of U.S. distribu¬ 
tors' advertising and promotional efforts. However, even when 
distributors have mounted extensive, and expensive, advertising 
campaigns -- as was recently the case with the Soviet production 
The Slave of Love -- the films have rarely recouped their 
expenses much less earned a profit. Industry sources report, 
for example, that The Slave of Love, which received more press 
and media attention than perhaps any Eastern film to date, lost 
several hundred thousand dollars at the box office. 

To put the problem in perspective, however, U.S. distribu¬ 
tors point out that it is difficult to sell any foreign film 
(the rare French or Italian offering being the exception) to the 
U.S. mass market. On the other hand, much East European cinema 
is of high quality (six such films have been nominated for 
Academy Awards since 1975) and it enjoys wide exposure among 
specialized audiences -- in museums, universities and arts 
theaters. 

Since 1975, Washington's American Film Institute has, for 
example, presented a number of festivals featuring films from 
the Soviet Union (including a cycle from Georgia), Poland, 
Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. On the West coast, Los Angeles' 
Berkley Cinema recently ran a series of modern Soviet films 
including, among others, "Sweet Woman," "The White Ship" and 
"They Fought for their Motherland." The Kosciuzko Foundation, 
a private organization devoted to promoting awareness of Polish 
culture in the United States, is a frequent sponsor of Polish 
film showings and cultural events, and recently sponsored a 
festival of Polish director Andrzej Wajda films at Hunter 
College in New York. A series of Bulgarian films highlighted 
Dusquesne Unviersity's "Bulgarian Cultural Month," held in 
Pittsburgh March 24 - April 29, 1979. 

In 1976, New York's Museum of Modern Art held a 
retrospective of East German films and a series of Hungarian 
films is planned for the fall of 1979. 

The Pacific Film Archive in Berkley, California is another 
frequent sponsor of East European cinema. Most notably, the 
Archive co-sponsored a series, "New Films from Eastern Europe," 
at the 1978 San Francisco International Film Festival. The 
program included offerings from each East European CSCE state 


302 




as well as a special tribute to GDR documentary directors Andrew 
and Annelie Thorndike. 

The foregoing is not, of course, a complete listing of 
all such activities. However, these tvpes of showings -- at 
universities and arts centers -- ensure that East European 
cinema reaches a larger number of viewers than would seem the 
case if one considers onlv the conmercial film market On the 
other hand, the bulk of American audiences do remain sadly 
ignorant of East European film. 

In an attempt to increase the market for such films, ICA 
has proposed exchanges of Soviet and American film festivals 
and specialists, as a means of cultivating the interest and 
audiences necessarv for increased film exchange. Although the 
Soviet response has b&en lukewarm. ICA should continue to place 
special emphasis on exchanges of this type and should expand 
its proposals to include other nations of Eastern Europe as 
well. 

Educational Exchange 

The U.S. Government provides support for a variety of 
educational exchange programs involving citizens not onlv of 
the United States, but of other CSCE nations as well. The 
oldest, and most prestigious, government-financed program is 
known popularly as the Fulbright, or Fu1bright-Hayes, 
scholarship program. The exchange, which had its beginnings 
in limited legislative acts of the late 1940's, has since 
brought approximate1v 80.000 foreign and 45.000 American 
graduate students, scholars, lecturers and teachers to 
universities in the U.S. and a b r a a d, 

Until recently. East European exchanges made up only a 
small proportion of the total program. Since the Final Act 
was signed, however, this percentage has increased steadily 
-- from 13.4 percent of the worldwide total in 1976 to 17.9 
percent in 1 978 . The total commitment of fund*; to the East 
Furonean exchanges has also shown a steady increase. In 1976. 
the International Communication Agencv spent $2,173,351 to 
exchange 383 scholars and lecturers. In 1978, the figure was 
$3,232,257, an amount that facilitated the travel and study 
of 504 persons. 

The U.S. Government has also provided funds for a number 
of projects involving educational themes. ICA's International 
Visitor Program for example, has facilitated contacts and 
exchanges among delegations of U.S. and East European librarians 
and teachers, as well as specialists in vocational-technical, 
early childhood and higher education. Grants awarded under 
this program have been instrumental in effecting the conclusion 
of direct exchange agreements between a number of U.S. and East 


303 



European universities, among them, Rutgers, Kiev, SUNY, Moscow 
State, Warsaw and Kansas. As a measure of the success of such 
contacts, it is worth noting that there are now four direct 
exchange agreements between U.S. and Soviet universities and 
more than 30 between U.S. and Polish universities. All of the 
Soviet and many of the Polish agreements have been concluded 
since the Final Act was signed. 

Finally, with grants-in-aid to private institutions, ICA 
gives support for exchanges organized and directed by private 
organizations. Under one grant of this type, four U.S. 
institutions (the National Council for Social Studies, the 
Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Association 
for the Advancement of Slavic Studies and the Association of 
American Publishers) have joined Soviet counterparts in a study 
evaluating each country's textbook presentation of the other. 

Perhaps the best known of these private exchanges is the 
program conducted by the International Research and Exchanges 
Board (IREX). One of the most extensive educational exchanges 
the U.S. maintains with Eastern Europe, IREX programs include 
scholars from the USSR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German 
Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania. As private 
funding from the Ford Foundation for IREX has diminished, 
government support through ICA has increased -- from $629,730 
in 1975 to $1,151,827 in 1978-1979. Similarly, grants to IREX 
from another government agency, the National Endowment for the 
Humanities, have also increased. 

Another academic exchange program which has begun, in the 
face of increasing economic difficulties, to receive ICA support 
is that of the Council on International Educational Exchange 
(CIEE). Also a recipient of Office of Education funds, CIEE 
makes possible a semester or summer of study in the USSR for 
approximately 215 American students a year. Since the Final 
Act was signed, U.S. universities and consortia have concluded 
more than 20 new agreements with institutions in the Soviet 
Union, Poland, Hungary and Romania. While these kinds of 
exchanges are rapidly increasing, the U.S. Government cannot, 
and should not, be expected to, support them all. As with 
exchanges between American and West European universities, East 
European programs must also be sustained by the interest and 
support of the academic community itself. 

Where it has been unable to provide program funds, however, 
the U.S. Government has sought to help administrators with 
technical assistance and advice. An official of the American 
Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR), a group which conducts 
a program at Moscow's Pushkin Institute, recently said, 

"Although the (ACTR) program is not in any sense governmental 
and has qualified so far for no IREX or State Department (ICA) 
support, it has enjoyed the moral support and advice of the 


304 


Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department 
of State and the International Communication Agency and has 
worked in close cooperation with the Cultural Affairs Officer 
of the Anerican Embassy in Moscow." 

Finally, the U.S. commitment to fulfilling CSCE provisions 
calling for increased mutual understanding through educational 
exchange is seen in the sheer numbers of American students who 
have traveled to East European states on government supported 
programs. Unfortunately, a smaller number of East European 
students have made the return trip. Under the CIEE program 
alone, 221 U.S. undergraduate and graduate students were able 
to study in the USSR in 1978 for periods of longer than two 
months. In the return direction, only 42 Soviet students 
visited the U.S. in a delegation that stayed only a few weeks 
and visited four different universities. 

The fact that the U.S. Government has supported private 
programs and activities at the same time it has been conducting 
its own exchanges under the Fu1bright-Hayes program is 
indicative of the high priority the U.S. Government places on 
international educational activity and on fulfilling its CSCE 
commitments. Many of the private programs which form the 
cornerstone of East-West educational exchange, however, are 
severely threatened by funding shortages. While it is not 
recommended that the U.S. Government indiscriminately increase 
its support of these programs -- some of which may not be 
qualitatively deserving of such support -- the government should 
work with administrators in seeking new sources and methods 
of funding. 


Foreign Language and International Studies 

As critics have charged, the current level of foreign 
language and international studies in the U.S. indeed falls 
short of CSCE standards. A few statistics illustrate the degree 
to which the study of foreign languages and cultures has 
declined in recent years: 

-- Nine out of 10 Americans cannot speak, read or 
effectively understand any language but English. 

-- Only 15 percent of 1976 entering college freshmen said 
their high school programs prepared them very well in foreign 
1anguages. 

-- One-fifth of public high schools offer no foreign 
1anguage at all. 

-- Anerican institutions of higher education requiring 
a foreign language for admission or graduation declined from 
73 percent to 53 percent between 1967 and 1974. 


305 


The decrease in foreign language study in the U.S. has 
affected all the major European languages -- Spanish, French, 
German, Italian and Russian, although enrollments in Russian 
have not dropped as severely as those in French and German. 

Given the significant drop in enrollments in these 'commonly 
studied' languages, it is hardly surprising that the study of 
'less widely spoken languages' encouraged by the Final Act has 
not increased. 

On the other hand, U.S. Government efforts have sought 
to maintain such studies at least at a constant level. Under 
the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), the U.S. Office of 
Education provides scholarship and institutional support to 
centers devoted to the study of these lesser known areas. In 
1977, for example, the Foreign Language and Area Studies 
Fellowship Program supported the study of such less widely 
spoken CSCE languages as Czech, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, 
Serbo-Croatian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Estonian, 
Finnish and Lithuanian. In Fiscal Year 1979, Congress increased 
the NDEA appropriation to its highest level in the history of 
the program. 

It is evident, however, that these programs alone are not 
enough to reverse the trend toward declining enrollments. Many 
factors serve to produce this state of affairs. The relative 
geographic isolation of the United States and the dominance 
of English as an international language have reduced interest 
in strong language and area studies in the U.S. This, combined 
with the difficulties language and area studies graduates 
experience in the job market, has eroded both student interest 
and public support for these fields of study. 


The problem is one, however, that U.S. Government officials 
and policymakers are taking steps to solve. For example, 
efforts of the CSCE Corrmission, led by Corrmi s s i one r Paul Simon, 
resulted in the establis hme nt of the President's Corrm i s s i o n on 
Foreign Language and International Studies. The 25 Corrmission 
members appointed by the President on September 15, 1978, were 
charged with reconmending ways to strengthen and improve the 
study of foreign langauge and international studies in four 
areas: public awareness; needs for language and area special¬ 
ists; appropriate study programs for all educational levels; and 
resources and legislation required to accomplish the task. The 
Corrmi s s i on' s Final Report, issued as this study went to press 
on November 7, 1979, presented a comprehensive program for re¬ 

juvenating U.S. language and area studies. Both the President 
and Congress should place a high priority on implementing the 
most practical and feasible of the Commission's recommendations. 

In a related effort to develop global awareness in the 
U.S. Congress established (with the Educational Amendments of 
1976) Section 603 of NDEA, Title VI, to "...increase the 


306 


understanding of students in the United States about the 
cultures and actions of other nations in order to better 
evaluate the international and domestic impact of major national 
policies." Currently in its first year of funding this 
program will support elementary and secondary school projects 
designed to increase students' international awareness and 
understanding. 

Scientific Exchange 

Although official U.S. scientific cooperation with Eastern 
Europe has been treated at length elsewhere in this report, the 
non-governmental exchange programs administered by the U.S. 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are an important element of 
U.S. cooperation under the Final Act. Exchanges between the 
National Academy and its East European counterparts began in 
1959 when NAS and the Soviet Academy of Sciences signed the 
first scientific cooperative agreement between the United States 
and an East European country. Since that time, agreements have 
been concluded with the National Academies of all the East 
European CSCE states. Exchanges under the most recent -- that 
with the German Democratic Academy -- began in September of 
1978. 


The Interacademy exchanges have made it possible for 
scientists from the U.S. and Eastern Europe to join efforts 
in a number of basic scientific fields, among them mathematics, 
chemistry, physics and biology. The scope of interaction has 
ranged from exchanges of individual scientists and the sharing 
of scientific information, to the holding of joint seminars 
and symposia. In 1978, for example, 185 American and East 
European scientists engaged in exchange visits which lasted 
a combined total of 505.5 months. (Interacademy exchanges are 
administered under a system of quotas expressed in months rather 
than participants). Also in 1978, the Soviet and American 
academies conducted a joint symposium, "New Directions in 
Biology: Biological Membranes," the fourth meeting in a series 
begun in 1975. 

The U.S. Government's commitment to promoting scientific 
cooperation is underscored by the fact that the Academy 
exchanges are funded by grants from the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) -- the primary government agency for promoting 
scientific research and education in the U.S. In addition to 
the Academy exchanges, NSF funds a number of the official 
bilateral agreements the U.S. has concluded with East European 
CSCE states. This latter fact, coupled with a general falling 
off in budgetary support for scientific research over the last 
several years, has led the Foundation to approach with caution 
proposals to increase and modify the Academy's exchanges. As 
a result, quotas under the agreements have, with one exception, 
remained fairly constant since the Final Act was signed -- 


307 


despite the oft-expressed willingness of many of the East 
European academies to increase the levels. In the one excep¬ 
tion, U.S.-Soviet quotas underwent a 50 percent increase in 
1975 which could not be sustained in subsequent years. Funding 
problems made it necessary to return to the previous levels 
in 1976. 

Although the double burden the United States Government 
has assumed in funding both the Interacademy and the official 
bilateral exchanges speaks well for U.S. CSCE compliance, the 
quality of this compliance has been damaged by U.S. funding 
problems. Consideration should, therefore, be given to 
providing more funds to the Academy programs. 

Multilateral Activites 


U.S. involvement in multilateral cultural and educational 
activities mentioned in the Final Act is ensured by U.S. parti¬ 
cipation in a variety of United Nations Educational, Scientific 
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) projects. Although UNESCO 
coordinates many such activities, two recent projects have 
particular relevance to U.S. CSCE compliance. 

In December of 1978, the U.S. participated in a UNESCO 
Conference of Governmental Experts, held in Paris, to draft 
a convention on the recognition of studies, diplomas and degrees 
in higher education in UNESCO's European region (a region that 
includes all CSCE states). Mutual recognition of diplomas and 
degrees awarded by universities in the CSCE states has been 
a subject of particular interest to Soviet and East European 
educators whose students often face difficulties when enrolling 
in Western institutions. Although the autonomous structure 
of the American university system limits the degree of 
commitment the United States Government can make in this sphere, 
U.S. participation in December's conference signals a 
willingness to develop solutions that will meet Final Act 
criteria. 

U.S. performance in meeting a second Final Act recommenda¬ 
tion has been sporadic. The Cultural Exchange Chapter of Basket 
III specifically calls upon CSCE states to convene meetings of 
experts within UNESCO to consider the establishment of a CSCE 
Cultural Data Bank -- a sort of cultural information clearing¬ 
house which would further facilitate joint cultural activities. 
The U.S. has not participated in either of the two meetings 
UNESCO has convened on this subject as concerned institutions 
and organizations felt that any outcome would have little or no 
applicability to us, given the wide diversity of the U.S. 
cultural scene. Nor has it been possible to supply data bank 
organizers with all of the information they have requested due 
to the fact that cultural activities in the U.S. are conducted 
by a tremendous variety of groups and organizations, the major- 


308 



ity of whom are in the private sector. No centrai cultural 
coordinating body exists to provide the type of information 
UNESCO requires and private sector cooperation is often imposs¬ 
ible to obtain. In this instance, the U.S. decentralized system 
diminishes the effectiveness of efforts to comply with this 
particular Final Act r ecorrmendat i on . 

Cone 1 usion 


The period since the CSCE Final Act was signed in Helsinki 
in August of 1975 has witnessed a general expansion and 
strengthening of cultural and educational relations between 
the United States and other CSCE states. This expansion is 
particularly striking in the case of the East European states 
which have accused the U.S. of not living up to its Helsinki 
commitments. Though there are still weak spots in the U.S. 
performance, progress can nonetheless be seen in a variety of 
deve1opmen t s. 

Contacts between U.S. and Eastern publishers -- particu¬ 
larly those from the USSR -- have expanded significantly, often 
with concrete, long-term results. The post-He 1sinki period 
has seen the initiation of regular meetings between U.S. and 
Soviet writers; the institution of Interacademy scientific 
exchanges with the German Democratic Republic; and the conclu¬ 
sion of official bilateral exchange agreements with Hungary 
and Bulgaria. More East European films have been nominated 
for U.S. Academy Awards since the Final Act was signed than 
during any comparable period before or after the Prague Spring. 
Finally, relations between U.S. and Eastern universities have 
greatly expanded with the conclusion of direct exchange agree¬ 
ments in unprecedented numbers. 

The U.S. Government has been a strong promoter of these 
and other activities. Although several problem areas -- among 
them the status of foreign language and international studies 
in the U.S. -- remain to be addressed effectively, the trend 
toward increased contacts and greater mutual awareness has 
corresponded to the spirit of the Final Act. 

This assessment does not imply, however, that further 
efforts -- both public and private -- are not needed. Congress 
and the Administration should give full consideration to 
implementing the r ecorrmendat i on s to be contained in the Final 
Report of the President's Commission on Foreign Language and 
International Studies. In addition, the U.S. International 
Communication Agency should turn more attention to increasing 
film exchanges and ensuring continued adequate funding for 
academic exchanges. ICA should also give consideration to the 
prospects for expanding cultural exchange programs with Eastern 
Europe to include the variety of activities currently observed 
in the Soviet programs. Consideration should also be given 


309 



to the feasibility of increasing funding for the Interacademy 
exchanges and the Department of State should improve the U.S. 
record of participation in UNESCO activities endorsed by the 
Final Act -- particularly U.S. involvement in the Cultural Data 
Ban k. 


CONCLUSION - CHAPTER 5 

U. S. Compliance with Basket III of the Final Act has been 
marked by continuing adherence to the principles of freedom of 
movement for people, information and ideas. Like other CSCE 
states, the United States cannot yet claim full implementation 
of these provisions. On the other hand, its performance in 
meeting Basket III goals has been among the best of the 
participating states. 

In the area of information exchange, the U.S. ranks second 
to none in the degree to which its borders are open to news¬ 
papers, journals and radio broadcasts from other countries -- 
irrespective of their political systems or attitudes towards the 
U.S. Moreover, cultural and educational exchanges with other 
CSCE signatories, particularly those in Eastern Europe, have 
grown significantly since the Final Act was signed in 1975. 

In the post-Helsinki period, American citizens have 
remained free to leave and enter the country at will as the 
last restrictions to travel to a limited number of countries 
were removed in 1977. In addition, the U.S. has continued to 
accept large numbers of refugees from all over the world each 
year . 


Yet it is in this area -- freedom of travel -- that the 
U.S. record seems most in need of improvement. While every 
country maintains controls on the entry of foreigners, specific 
U.S. visa policies do appear to be somewhat more restrictive 
than necessary. This is moreover, a view which has come to 
be shared by a large number of policy-makers, both in Congress 
and the Administration. Therefore, the Commission has recommended 
that the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policies 
take U.S. CSCE commitments into account when proposing reforms 
for U.S. visa laws. In addition, speedy passage and enactment 
of the Refugee Act of 1979 would greatly improve U.S. policies 
toward prospective and actual immigrants. 

With these changes, U.S. compliance with Basket III would 
more fully correspond to the principles the Final Act has long 
espoused. 


310 



CHAPTER SIX 


OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Implementation of the Helsinki Final Act is a continuous 
process. None of the 35 participating states are in total 
compliance with each and every provision of this unique politi¬ 
cal agreement. Consequently, there will always be room for 
improvement, varying in subject and degree from country to 
country. The level of compliance, therefore, is less important 
than the effort each state makes to improve its record. 

Countries such as the United States, with a relatively high 
level of compliance, are under no less ob1i gabion to improve 
than other countries. Improved compliance depends both on 
expanded fulfillment of existing provisions as well as avoidance 
of actions which would run counter to those provisions. Clearly 
the most egregious violations are those which result from 
deliberate, contemptuous disregard of the letter and spirit 
of the Final Act. 

As the United States willingly acknowledged at the Belgrade 
review meeting, the U.S. implementation record, like the records 
of other CSCE states, is not perfect. However, it is clear from 
this comprehensive (although inevitably less than exhaustive) 
study, that overall U.S. performance is very good. More 
importantly, the efforts undertaken by the U.S. Government and 
private groups since the Final Act was signed in 1975 reveal 
a consistent striving for improvement. As one private civil 
rights organization has pointed out: " There are limitless 
opportunities structured into Anerican society and its institu¬ 
tions to provide oversight, public criticism and governmental 
correctives for practices deemed to violate the sense of the 
Helsinki accords. There are scores of private and public 
agencies in the United States monitoring, year-round, the degree 
of compliance of American institutions.... There are also 
governmental agencies that actively monitor with administrative, 
judicial and legislative power, the practices of both private 
and public entities." 

At the same time, there are areas where additional improve¬ 
ment is needed to bring the U.S. closer to full compliance with 
its obligations under the Final Act. This report has discussed 
U.S. shortcomings, as well as improvements, in some detail and 
has offered r ecorrmenda t i on s , where appropriate, for further 
improvement. We trust that these observations and recommenda¬ 
tions will be given careful consideration by responsible govern¬ 
mental bodies. Of course, there are limitations on the Federal 
Government's authority to order compliance with specific provi¬ 
sions of the Final Act. One such limitation arises from the 
Anerican system of divided powers which, although designed to 
protect individual freedom, divides authority between the three 


311 




branches of the Federal Government on the one hand and between 
federal, state and local government on the other. Another 
restriction stems from the limited power of the U.S. Government 
over private citizens and groups -- another Constitutional 
guarantee of individual liberty. 

To make these observations is not to argue that the U.S. is 
any less obligated to fulfill its commitments under the Helsinki 
Final Act. The American system is sufficiently flexible and 
resilient to assure that the necessary improvements can be 
accomplished. However, to overcome these obstacles, the Federal 
Government and interested private groups will need to make a 
special effort to develop greater public awareness and under¬ 
standing for the goals of CSCE. The Commission is encouraged 
that through the personal efforts of the President, the work 
of newly formed private monitoring groups and other develop¬ 
ments, there is a growing sensitivity and willingness to 
cooperate throughout the government and the private community 
in fulfilling U.S. commitments under the Helsinki accords. 

To foster this trend and to assist in future monitoring and 
implementation of the Final Act, the Commission welcomes 
comments and suggestions on this report from other CSCE states, 
from government organizations and private groups and from 
individual citizens who, in the last analysis, should be the 
beneficiaries of whatever measure of success CSCE achieves. 

The Commission hopes that, at a minimum, this report will 
serve three purposes. First, it will demonstrate the good faith 
of the United States in conscientiously examining its own 
implementation record, including shortcomings pointed out by 
other CSCE participants and domestic critics. Second, it will 
encourage greater efforts at improved implementation in the 
U.S. by various responsible parties. Third, it will stimulate 
other Helsinki countries to undertake similiar public 
assessments of their own performance records. If these three 
goals are achieved, the prospects for productive results at 
the next CSCE review meeting in Madrid in 1980 will measurably 
brighten and the CSCE process itself will be enhanced 
according1y. 


312 


TABLE OF APPENDICES 


Description Page 


Appendix I , Chart 1 - U.S.-Sponsored Military Maneuvers 314 
Notified in 1975-1979 Under the Provisions of the 
Helsinki Final Act 

Appendix I, Chart 2 - Military Exchange Between the U.S. 315 
and Warsaw Pact Countries 1976-1978 
Appendix II - The Courts and Prisons Status Report 317 

Ap pendix III - Copy of the bill H.R. 10 322 

Appendix IV, Chart 1 - List of 161 Major Religious Bodies 330 

in the United States 

Appendix IV, Chart 2 - Table of U.S. Trade with the 332 

Soviet Union and Eastern Europe 1974-1978 
Appendix IV, Chart 3 - Table of Trade Promotion Events 334 

Staged or to be Staged by the Bureau of East-West Trade 
July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1979 
A ppendix V - Publications issued by Treasury Department 335 

Appendix VI, Chart 1 - Illustrative List of U.S. 341 

Industrial Cooperation Agreements Concluded in 1976 
and 1977 with East European and Soviet Partners 
Appendix VI, Chart 2 - S urrma ryofSelectedU.S. 350 

Cooperative Activities in Science and Technology under 
the Helsinki Final Act 

Appendix VI, Chart 3 - Environmental Protection Agency, 368 
(EPA) Activities with International Organizations and 
CSCE States 

Appendix VII - Table of Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visas 369 
Refused and Reasons for Fiscal Year 1976 
Appendix VIII - Copy of the Waiver Language of Section 370 

212(d)(3) 

Appendix IX - Copy of Sections 212(a)(27), (28) and (29) 371 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
Appendix X - Table of Nonimmigrants Admitted by Classes 375 
under U.S. Immigration Laws 1970 through 1978 
Appendix XI - List of Cultural and Educational Exchange: 378 

U.S. Organizations Involved in East-West Cooperation 


313 










































































































































U.S.-SPONSORED MILITARY MANEUVERS NOTIFIED IN 1975-1979 
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE HELSINKI FINAL ACT 


V) 

CO 



CO 


CO 

CO 

CO 

L 

1 



-(-» 


+-> 

+-> 

•M 

1 O 03 

c 



C 


C 

C 

C 

03 +-> > 

03 



03 


03 

03 

03 

+-> 1_ 

CL 



CL 


CL 

Cl 

Cl 

—• c 03 

1 — 



• -H 


• -H 

• -H 

• —* 

> O co 

u 



U 


U 

U 

U 

C —• X 

1 — 



■ —i 


• H 


■ — - 

« -M O 

1 +- 



+-> 


-M 

+-• 

+-> 



CO 

CO 

i— 

CO 

L- 

L 

L. 


03 

+■* 

-M 

03 

+-> 

03 

03 

03 


CL 

C 

c 

CL¬ 

C 

CL 

CL 

CL 

CO 

1 

03 

03 


03 




03 "a 

1 UJ 

uj a 

UJ Cl 

UJ 

UJ Cl 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

•- 03 

1 U 

O - 

U - 

(J 

U — 

U 

U 

U 

v_ • —' 

to 

0O U 

0O U 

CO 

00 u 

oo 

oo 

oo 

+-* M-l 

U 

U - 

U - 

<J 

U - 

U 

U 

U 

C —' 

1 

+-> 



■M 




3 -M 

1 — 

—' L. 

—i L. 

—i 

—> L- 

— 

_< 

_i 

O O 

1 — 

— 03 

—• 03 

—i 

—< 03 

_ 


_, 

U 2 

1 < 

< CL 

< a 

< 

< CL 

< 

< 

< 




CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 


1 «« 

CO 

>> 

>. 

>> 


>> 



>> 

>-, 

03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

1 

03 

03 

x 

X 

■a 

03) 

■a 

X) 

— c 

1 -v 

x 







m-h O C 

1 


•H 


— 

— H 

-a- 

wo 


1 ■=** 

(N 

CN 

CN 

CN 

CN 

CN 

CN 

+-»+■»> 

1 ^ 

CO 








o ftJ ■- | 

2 o a i 



CO | 

1 x 

+-> 


JZ 

L. 


X 1- 

x: u 


1 



L. IN | 

>- 

u > 

x: <u 

■M 

03 


L- O 

+-* 13 


C 



03 03 

I co l- 

O o 

+■• jQ 


-Q 

JZ 

CO JZ 

OO X3 


03 

X3 

X 03 

> X 

I CN CD 

2 

" _l £ 

— i 

E 

+-> 

CN £ 

<N E 


r-) 

03 

O -C 

3 

1 XZ 


-H 0J 

i 

03 

CO 

1 03 

1 03 



Cl 

— i -t-> 

03 • I 

1 -C o 

— a; 

1 +-> 

JZ 

+-• 

i 

•C -M 

JZ +-• 


x: 


L_ 

c o 

1 +-* ■*-> 

L. +-> 

JC CL 

-*-• 

CL 

+-> >N 

+-> CL 

■m Cl 


+-> 


03 m 

03 Z 

I ^ u 

03 03 

+-> cj 

CO 

03 

co o3 

CO 03 

OO 03 


o 

■M 

CL O ^—" 1 

1 - O 

UJ U 

to 


OO 


—• OO 

—< c/) 


CO 

VO 


1 

i 

1 CL 

a 


a 



< * 



i 

X 


&0 

1 

X 

CL 


CL 




i 


X oo 

c 


1 

U- 


Cl 



u • 

X 


1 

X 

1 •-« 

CO 

< 

I 

O 

i 



I UJ 

J 


(J 

i 

< +-> 

03 

0 

< 

CL 

< 



UJ Z 

i 


CL 

sy 

-t-> 03 

u 

• 

0 

Cl 

0 



CD i 

UJ oo 


U. 

X 

l- CL 

v- 

a 

i 

i 

1 



• a 

a x 


1 

i 

(0 —H 

o 

CL in 

CO 

oo 

oo 


OO 

OO UJ 



< 

UJ 

CL U 

U- | 

U- D 

D 

D 

X 


D 

X CL 

UJ v 


O 

2 










CD 5 i 

o 












+-> 

CL 





03 







c- 1 

U- 


0JD 03 


1 

1 — 







1 3 -M 


i 

U * 


1 

L- 



c 




X *+H X « 


c 

3 i- 



03 



L. 

>x 



— C 03 CUD 00 

03 

X3 03 

03 

1 

> 



03 

c 



03 ■ •»-» L 

L* 

X 

C > 

03 

1 

03 ^ 


0) • 

XL 

03 



l-h 03 co 3 

D 

03 

03 03 

L- 

1 

CD O 


co O 

-*-* 

E 



co ^ F X3 jQ 

CD 

+-> cD 

< 

1 

CL 

a 

co cL 

D 

L- 

a 

a 

X co JZ c— C 

E 


L. 


1 

% u. 

CL 

<u tu 

O 

03 

CL 

CL 

03 0) U 03 O 


• 

: 3 • 


1 

2 — 

Cl 


oo O 

CL 

CL 

cD X <n a s J 

2 ^ >S 



i— 

i_ 

u 

1— 


L- 






L. 

1 

1 

• —« 

< 

• — H 

< 

< 

< 


< 

< 

< 




M-C 03 

1 

— 


^— 

~~— 


"— 

■— 





O > 

1 

X 

X 

X 

X 


X 

X 

X 


X 


=3 

1 

c 

c 

c 

c 


c 

c 

c 


c 


03 03 

1 

D 

33 




D 

3 

3 


3 


CL C 

! 

o 

O 

o 

o 


o 

O 

o 


o 


>> 03 

| 

u 

L- 

L> 

c_ 


L- 

L- 

1— 


u 


H 2 

1 

a 

a 

a 

a 


a 

a 

a 


a 



03 


a> 

XZ 


L- 

03 

> 

3 

<v 

c 

03 


CL 


< 

H * 
CL X 


X 

(J 


ITS 

in 

as 


CL 

h- 


CL 

X 

o 


x ^ 

UJ ir\ 
O' 


I X 

|-a 

03 > 
> — 
— o 
o > 
> c 
c •- 





CN 




o o 


—i 


—' 


—i 


o o 



V 



■—■ 

X 

o - 

7 



2 CL 

—A 

2 

2 X 

-co 


Q 

-- 

— X 

2 ^ 

- a 

- 2 

co CN 


X 

n 

< f- 

O 

< X 

< « 

CN 

Q 

X 

x S 

(— X 

CD X 

{— X 

H H 

L. 

Q 

X 

CL < 

< X 

cl a 

X — 

§8 

CL ~ 

X X 

CL 2 

X X 

l. 03 
03 X 


in 

X (- 

u X 

U x 

U on 

U in 

> C 

O X 

v£> 





©0 

as 








IN 


as 



as 


as 

ON 

— 1 CN 

— 1 




— 1 

— 

w 


c 

03 

E 





























































































































































































































































































































APPENDIX I 


1975 


1975 


1976 


1977 


CHART 2 



1975-1978 

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIALS 


VISITING COUNTRY HOST COUNTRY 


DATE 


USA 


Roman i a 


USA 


USA 


Roman i a 


PARTICULARS 


Chiefs of Staff 


Roman i a 


Sept emb e r 15 


Other Visits 


USA 


USSR 


Roman i a 


USA 


October 


May 9-20 


April 28- 
May 2 

July 3-23 


General Weyand, Army 
Chief of Staff 


General Tutoveanu, 
Commandant of the 
Romanian Military 
Academy 

Visit by BG J. L. 
Collins, Jr., U.S. 
Army, in order to 
improve relations 
between military 
historians 


U.S. National 
College 


War 


Visit to New York 
City, Baltimore and 
Ph i 1ade1phia by 
naval training ship 
Mi r cea 


USA 


USA 


Roman i a 


Roman i a 


Soviet Union 


USA 


September 13 Visit to Constanta 

by USS Yarnel 


May 1-6 


May 5-6 


Visit to Buchares t 
by National Defense 
University/ICAF 
De 1egation 

Visit by military 
attaches in Wash¬ 
ington to selected 
U. S. mi 1itary units 


315 
















































































1977 
(Con'd) 

USA 

USSR 

May 11-18 

Delegation of Mili¬ 
tary Representative 
from National 

Defense University 


Soviet 

USA 

July 19-20 

Visit by Commander - 
in-Chief of Soviet 
forces in Germany 
and member s of his 
staff to U.S. Army 
Europe Headquarters 
and a U.S. Army 
training area 

1978 

USSR 

USA 

April 18-30 

LTG Pavel Zhihn, 

Di rector of the 
Soviet Ministry of 
Defense's Institute 
of Military History 


USA 

Hungary 

Spring 

Students from senior 
service schools 


USA 

Roman i a 

Spring 

Students from senior 
service schoo1s 


USA 

Roman i a 

November 

22-27 

Visit to Constanta 
by U.S. warship 


316 























































APPENDIX II 


Status Report - The Courts and Prisons 

States in which there are existing court decrees, or 
pending litigation, involving the entire state prison system 
or the major institutions in the state and which deal with 
overcrowding and/or the total conditions of confinement (does 
not include jails except for D.C.): 

1. A1abama: The entire state prison system is under court order 

dealing with total conditions and overcrowding. Pugh v. 
Locke, 406 F.Supp. 318 (M.D.Ala. 1976), aff'd in substance, 
Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. 
denied. 

2. Arizona: The state penitentiary is being challenged on 

total conditions and overcrowding, limiting prison 
population and reclassification. August 1977-February 
1978. Full trial probably in Fall 1979. Harris v. Card- 
well, C.A. No. 75-185 PHX-CAM (D.Ariz.). 

3. Arkansas: The entire state prison system is under court 

order dealing with total conditions. Finney v. Arkansas 
Board of Corrections, 505 F.2d 194 (8th Cir. 1974). 

4. Colorado: The state maximum security penitentiary is being 

challenged on total conditions and overcrowding. Complaint 
filed January 1978, case certified as a class action in 
March 1978. Full trial probably in Fall 1979. Ramos v. 
Larrm, C.A. No. 77-K- 1093 (D.Col.). 


317 



















































































5. Delaware : The state penitentiary is under court order dealing 

primarily with overcrowding and some conditions. 

Anderson v. Redmon , 429 F.Supp. 1105 (D.Del. 1977). 

6. Florida: The entire state prison system is under court order 

dealing with overcrowding. Costello v. Wainwright , 397 F. 

Supp. 20 (M.D.Fla. 1975), aff'd 525 F.2d 1239 and 553 F.2d 
506 (5th Cir. 1977). 

7. Georgia : The state penitentiary is being challenged on total 

conditions and overcrowding. Trial held in 1977, pending 
a decision. Guthrie v. Ault 

8. Illinois : The state penitentiary at Menard is being challenged 

on total conditions and overcrowding. Lightfoot v. Walker 

9. Indiana: The state prison at Pendleton is being challenged on 

total conditions and overcrowding. Trial held late in 1978. 
French v. Owens . A case was filed in Jan. 1979 against state 
penitentiary at Michigan City on overcrowding and total 
conditions. Wellman v. Faulkner , IP79-37-C (S.D.Ind.) 

10. Kentucky : The state penitentiary is being challenged on over¬ 

crowding and some conditions. Kendrick v. Carroll , C76-0079 
(W.D.Ky.) 

11. Louisiana : The state penitentiary is under court order dealing 

with overcrowding and some conditions. Williams v. Edwards , 

547 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977) 

12. Maryland: The 2 state penitentiaries are declared unconstitutional 

on overcrowding. Johnson v. Levine , 450 F.Supp. 648 (D.Md.1978) 
Nelson v. Collins, 455 F.Supp. 727 (D.Md.1978) 


318 






































































13. Massachusetts : The meximum security unit at the state prison 

in Walpole is being challenged on total conditions. 

Blake v. Hall , C.A. 78-3051-T (D.Mass.) 

14. Mississippi : The entire state prison system is under court 

order dealing with overcrowding and total conditions. 

Gates v. Collier , 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974) 

15. Missouri : The state penitentiary is under court order on 

overcrowding and some conditions. Trial held in Oct. 1978. 

Burks v. Graham 75 cvl49-C 

16. Nevada: The two major prisons are being challenged on over¬ 

crowding and total conditions. Maginnis v. O'Callaghan 
C.A. No. 77-0221 (D.Nev.) 

17. New Hampshire : The state penitentiary is under court order 

dealing with total conditions and overcrowding. 

Laaman v. Helgemoe , 437 F.Supp. 269 (D.N.H. 1977) 

18. New Mexico : The state penitentiary is being challenged on 

overcrowding and total conditions. Duran v. Apodaca / 

C.A. No. 77-721-C (D. N.Mex.) 

19. North Carolina : A lawsuit was recently filed at Central Prison 

in Raleigh on overcrowding and conditions. 

20. Ohio : The state prison at Lucasville is under court order on 

overcrowding. Chapman v. Rhodes/ 434 F.Supp. 1007 (S.D.Oh.1977) 
The state prison at Columbus is being challenged on total 
conditions and overcrowding. Stewart v. Rhodes / C.A. No. 
(S.D.Ohio). The state prison at Mansfield is being challenged 
on total conditions. Boyd v. Denton / C.A. 78-1054A (N.D.Oh) 


319 




















' 



















































21. Oklahoma: The state penitentiary is under court order 

on total conditions and the entire state prison system 
is under court order on overcrowding. Battle v. Anderson , 
564 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1977). 

22. Rhode Island: The entire state prison system is under court 

order on overcrowding and total conditions. Palmigiano v. 
Garrahy , 443 F.Supp. 956 (D.R.I. 1977). 

23. South Carolina : The state penitentiary is being challenged 

on overcrowding and conditions. Mattison v. So. Car. Bd. 
of Corr. C.A. No. 76-318. 

24. Tennessee: The entire state prison system declared unconsti¬ 

tutional on total conditions. Decision in August 1978 
with preliminary order closing one unit by state court 
Judge. Trigg v. Blanton , C.A. No. A6047 

25. Texas : The entire state prison system is being challenged 

on some conditions. Ruiz v. Estelle , Trial began 10/78. 

26. Utah : The state penitentiary is being challenged on over¬ 

crowding and some conditions. Nielson v. Matheson . 

27. Vermont: State prison closed. 

28. Washington : The state reformatory is being challenged on 

overcrowding and conditions. Collins v. Rhay , C.A. No. 
C78-13-V (W.D.Wash.) 

29. Wyoming : The state penitentiary is being operated under 

terms of a stipulation and consent decree. Bustos v. 
Herschler, C.A. No. C76-143-B (D.Wyo.). 


320 



























































































30. District of Columbia : The District jails are under court 

order on overcrowding and conditions. Inmates, D.C. Jail 
v. Jackson , 416 F.Supp. 119 (D.D.C. 1976), Campbell v. 
McGruder , 416 F.Supp. 100 and 111 (D.D.C. 1976), aff'd and 
remanded , C.A. No's 75-1350, 75-2273 (D.C.Cir. Mar. 30, 
1978) . 

31. Puerto Rico : The Commonwealth Penitentiary is under court 

order on overcrowding and conditions. Martinez-Rodrigues 
v. Jiminez , 409 F.Supp. 582 (D.P.R. 1976). 

32. Virgin Islands : Territorial prison is under court order 

dealing with conditions and overcrowding. Barnes v. Gov't 
of the Virgin Islands, 415 F.Supp. 1218 (D.V.I. 1976). 


321 



















































appendix III 


Union Calendar No. 33 

96th CONGRESS 

1st Session 

[Report No. 96—80] 

To authorize actions for redress in cases involving deprivations of rights of 
institutionalized persons secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of 
the United States. 


H.R.10 


IN TEE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

January 15, 1979 

Mr. Kastenmeier (for himself, Mr. Rodino, Mr. Edwards of California, Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Danielson, Mr. Drinan, Ms. Holtzman, Mr. Mazzoli, 
Mr. Harris, Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Railsback) introduced the following 
bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

April 3, 1979 

Additional sponsors: Mr. Gudger, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Mikva, Mr. Butler, Mr. 
Sawyer, Mr. Moorhead of California, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Hall of Texas, and 
Mr. Nolan 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union, an'd ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 


A BILL 

To authorize actions for redress in cases involving deprivations 
of rights of institutionalized persons secured or protected by 
the Constitution or laws of the United States. 


I—E* 


322 



































1 

9 

w 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 


(1) the term “institution ” means any facility or 
institution — 

(A) which is owned, operated, or managed by 
or provides services on behalf of any State or po¬ 
litical subdivision of a State; and 

(B) which is — 

(i) for persons who are mentally ill, dis¬ 
abled, or retarded, or chronically ill or 
handicapped; 

(ii) a jail, prison, or other coiwectional 
facility; 

(in) a pretrial detention facility; 

(iv) for juveniles held awaiting trial or 
residing for purposes of receiving care or 
treatment or for any other State purpose; or 

(v) providing skilled nursing, intermedi¬ 
ate or long-term care, or custodial or residen¬ 
tial care; 

(2) the term “person” means an individual, a 
trust or estate, a partnership, an association, or a 
corporation; 

(3) the term “State” means any of the several 
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico, or any of the territories and possessions 
of the United States; and 


323 


















1 (4) the term “legislative days ” means any calen- 

2 dar day on which either House of Congress is in 

3 session. 

4 Sec. 2. Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable 

5 cause to believe that any State or political subdivision of a 

6 State, any official, employee, or agent thereof, or other person 

7 acting on behalf of a State or political subdivision of a State 

8 is subjecting persons residing in or confined to any institu- 

9 tion to conditions which cause them to suffer grievous harm 

10 and deprive them, of any rights, privileges, or immunities se- 

11 cured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United 

12 States, and that such deprivation is pursuant to a pattern or 

13 practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights, 

14 privileges, or immunities, the Attorney General for or in the 

15 name of the United States may institute a civil action in any 

16 appropriate United States district court against such party 

17 for such equitable relief as may be appropriate to insure the 

18 full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immunities, 

19 except that such equitable relief shall be available to persons 

20 residing in an institution as'defined in paragraph (l)(B)(ii) 

21 of the first section of this Act only insofar as such persons are 

22 subjected to conditions which deprive them of rights, privi- 

23 leges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution 

24 of the United States. The Attorney General shall sign the 

25 complaint in such action. 


324 












1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

99 

23 

24 

25 


Sec. 3. (a) At the time of the commencement of an 
action under section 2 of this Act, the Attorney General shall 
certify to the court — 

(1) that, at least thirty days previously, he has 
notified in venting the Governor or chief executive 
officer and attorney general or chief legal officer of the 
appropriate State or political subdivision of the State 
and the director of the institution of — 

(A) the alleged pattern or practice of depriva¬ 
tions of rights, privileges, or immunities secured 
or protected by the Constitution or laws of the 
United States; 

(B) the supporting facts giving rise to the al¬ 
leged pattern or practice of deprivations, including 
the dates or time period during which the alleged 
pattern or practice of deprivations occurred and, 
when feasible, the identity of all persons reason¬ 
ably suspected of being involved in causing the al¬ 
leged pattern or practice of deprivations; and 

(C) the measures which he believes may 
remedy the alleged pattern or practice of depriva¬ 
tions; 

(2) that he or his designee has made a reasonable 
effort to consult with the Governor or chief executive 
officer and attorney general or chief legal officer of the 


325 





















1 appropriate State or political subdivision and the di- 

2 rector of the institution, or their designees , regarding 

3 assistance which may be available from the United 

4 States and which he believes may assist in the correc- 

5 tion of such pattern or practice of deprivations; 

6 (3) that he is satisfied that the appropriate offi- 

7 ciah have had a reasonable time to take appropriate 

8 action to correct such deprivations and have not ade- 

9 quately done so; and 

10 (4) that he believes that such an action by the 

11 United States is of general public importance and will 

12 materially further the vindication of the rights, privi¬ 
ly leges, or immunities secured or protected by the Consti- 

14 tution or laws of the United States. 

15 (b) Any certification made by the Attorney General 

16 pursuant to this section shall be signed by him. 

17 Sec. 4. (a) No later than one hundred and eighty days 

18 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General 

19 shall, after consultation with State and local agencies and 

20 persons and organizations having a background and expertise 

21 in the area of corrections, promulgate minimum standards 

22 relating to the development and implementation of a plain, 

23 speedy, and effective system for the resolution of grievances 

24 of adult persons confined in any jail, prison, or other coirec- 

25 tional facility, or pretrial detention facility. The Attorney 


326 
























1 General shall submit such proposed standards for publication 

2 in the Federal Register in conformity with section 553 of 

3 title 5, United States Code. Such standards shall take effect 

4 thirty legislative days after final publication unless, within 

5 such period, either House of the Congress adopts a resolution 

6 of disapproval. The minimum standards shall provide — 

7 (1) for an advisory role for employees and in- 

8 mates of correctional institutions (at the most decen- 

9 tralized level as is reasonably possible) in the formula- 

10 tion, implementation, and operation of the system; 

11 (2) specific maximum time limits for written re- 

12 plies to grievances with reasons thereto at each decision 

13 level within the system; 

14 (3) for priority processing of grievances which are 

15 of an emergency nature, including matters in which 

16 delay would subject the grievant to substantial risk of 

17 personal injury or other damages; 

18 (4) for safeguards to avoid reprisals against any 

19 grievant or participant in the resolution of a grievance; 

20 (5) for independent review of the disposition of 

21 grievances, including alleged reprisals, by a person or 

22 other entity not under the direct supervision or direct 

23 control of the institution. 

24 (b) The Attorney General shall develop a procedure for 

25 the prompt review and certification of systems for the resolu- 













1 tion of grievances of adult persons confined in any jail, 

2 prison, or other correctional facility, or pretrial detention fa- 

3 cility, which may he submitted by the various States and 

4 political subdivisions in order to determine if such systems 

5 are in substantial compliance with the minimum standards 

6 promulgated pursuant to this section. The Attorney General 

7 may suspend or withdraw such certification at any time if he 

8 has reasonable cause to believe that the grievance procedure 

9 is no longer in substantial compliance with the minimum 

10 standards promulgated pursuant to this section. 

11 (c) In any action brought pursuant to section 1979 of 

12 the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) 

13 by an adult person convicted of a crime confined in any jail, 

14 prison, or other correctional facility, the court shall continue 

15 such case for a period not to exceed ninety days in order to 

16 require exhaustion of such plain, speedy, and effective ad- 
11 ministrative remedy as is available if the court believes that 

18 such a requirement would be appropriate and in the interest 

19 of justice, except that such exhaustion shall not be required 

20 unless the Attorney General has certified or the court has 

21 determined that such administrative remedy is in substantial 

22 compliance with the minimum acceptable standards projnul- 

23 gated pursuant to this section. 

24 Sec. 5. The Attorney General shall include in his 

25 reqjort to Congress on the business of the Department of Jus- 


323 












1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

r* 

t 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 


txce prepared pursuant to section 522 of title 28, United 
States Code — 

(1) a statement of the number, variety, and out¬ 
come of all actions instituted pursuant to this Act; 

(2) a detailed explanation of the process by which 
the Department of Justice has received, reviewed, and 
evaluated any petitions or complaints regarding condi¬ 
tions in prisons, jails, or other correctional facilities, 
and an assessment of any special problems or costs of 
such process, and, if appropriate, recommendations for 
statutory changes necessary to improve such process; 
and 

(3) a statement of the nature and effect of the 
standards promulgated pursuant to section 4 of this 
Act, including an assessment of the impact which such 
standards have had on the workload of the United 
States courts and the quality of grievance resolution 
within jails, prisons, and other correctional or pretrial 
detention facilities. 


329 











































APPENDIX IV 


CHART 1 


World Book Encyclopedia, 1977 


MAJOR RELIGIOUS BODIES IN THE UNITED STATES 


ME MACKS HIP 


NAME 

•^wdwntists: 

Advent Christian Church.31,057 

Chuich of God General Conference 

(Oregon, Ill.).7,455 

•Seventh-day Adventists.479,799 

African Orthodox Church, The.6,000 

BfthA’i Faith (•Bahi’is). t 

•Baptists: 

•American Baptist Association.1,071,000 

•American Baptist Churches in the 

U.S.A.1,579,029 

Baptist General Conference.111,093 

Baptist Missionary Association of America... 211,000 

Conservative Baptist Assn, of America.300,000 

Duck River (and Kindred) Associations of 

Baptists. .8,909 

Free Will Baptists.215,000 

General Association of Regular Baptist 

Churches.250,000 

General Baptists, General Association of.70,(XX) 

•National Baptist Convention of America. . .2,068,799 
•National Baptist Convention, U.S. A., Inc. •*6,300,000 
National Baptist Evangelical Life and 

Soul Saving Assembly of U.S.A.57,674 

•National Primitive Baptist Convention, 

Inc..1,645,000 

North American Baptist Genera! C’-onfercnce. .41,437 

Primitive Baptists.72,000 

Progressive National Baptist Convention, I nc. 521,692 

Separate Baptists in Christ.7,496 

Seventh Day Baptist General Conference.5,230 

•Southern Baptist Convention.12,513,378 

United Free Will Baptist Chnreli.100,(MX) 

•Brethren (German Baptists): 

•Brethren, Ohurrh of the.17^,387 

Brethren Church (Ashland, Ohio).16,279 

Brethren Churches, National Fellowship of. .33,514 
Brethren, River: 

Brethren in Christ Church.10,255 

Buddhist Churches of America.100,(XX) 

Christadelphians.15,800 

Christian and Missionary Alliance.144,245 

Christian Church (’Disciples of Christ).1,312,326 

Christian Churches and Churrhes of ( Ihrist. . 1,034,047 

Christian Union.5,301 

Church of Chiist(Holiness) U.S.A...9,289 

Church of Christ, Scientist (‘Christian Scientists) 

Church of Illumination.9,(XX) 

•Church of the Na7nrene.430,128 

•Churrhrs of Christ.2,400,(XX) 

Churches of Christ in Christian Union.9,781) 

•Churches of God: 

Church of God (Anderson, Ind.).161,401 

• H.. » Irptmtf .rim. In WOHOOK t Mnn,)- r^lp tUUKIn IW* ...ll.hl. 

urr»: frarf -x.S c/ A wr-rir.. an4 Canadian Cop>rlrhl <6 1U76. Nallmial Coum-n th» Cburr-hc. of C btiat In Uk C.H. X 


NAME MEMBEMM 

Church of God (Seventh Day). Denver, Colo. 5.^* 

Church of God by Faith.4.5® 

Church of God and Saints of Christ. 

Churches of God General Conference. 37fl" 

Churches of the Living God: 

Church of the Living God. 

Congregational Christian Churches, 

National Association of.98,0® 

Conservative Congregational Christian Conf.... 21,975 
Eastern Churches: __ 

Armenian Apostolic Church of America_125,0® 

Armenian Cnurch of North America, Diocese_ 
of the (including Diocese of California).. .372,0® 
•Eastern Orthodox Churches: 

Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese in America. .40,0® 

Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America.W* 

American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox 

Greek Catholic Church.1(X),0® 

Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of 

North America.1*0, 0® 

Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church.86,0® 

•Greek Orthtxlox Archdiocese of North 

and South America. 1,950,0® 

Holy Ukrainian Autocepiialic Ohurrh 

in Exile.4,&4 

Orthodox Church in America.1,000,0® 

Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America 40,0®' 
Russian Orthodox Church in the 

U.S.A., Patriarchal Parishes of ihe .51,■3® 

Russian (Orthodox Church Outside Russia... .55,00- 
Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church for the 

U.S.A. and Canada. 65,000 

Syrian Orthodox Chun li of Antioch 

(Archdiocese of the U.S.A. and Canada)-54,000 

Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A.. .87,745 
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America 

(Ecumenical Patriarchate).30,0® 

•Episcopal Church.2,90,,29-' 

•Ethical Culture Movement.V 1 ™ 

Evangelical Church of North America.144,714 

Evangelical Congregational Church.29’6S> 

F.vangelical Covenant Church of America.69,96t 

Evangelical Free Church of America./O.490 

Evangelistic Association-/: 

Apostolic Christian Churches of America.-9,5® 

Christian Congregation.59,0® 

Missionary Churcn.W®!" 

Pillar of Fire.-V® 

Free Christian Zion Church of Christ.22,2® 

Independent Fundamental Churches of _ 

America.87,5C 

•Jehovah’s Witnesses.5 

Jewish Congregations (*Jews). ..6,11 5,0® 

• >V,mhrr>X-p rr-pnrtid by 0"® 


330 


















































































































MAJOR RELIGIOUS BODIES IN THE UNITED STATES 


membership 

T-attrr Day Saints, Reorganize*! Church of 

Jesus Christ of.156,687 

Latter-day Saints, Church of Irsus Christ of 

('Mormons).‘.2,683,.573 

Lutherans: 

‘American Lutheran Church.2,437,862 

Apostolic Lutheran Church of America.9,384 

Church of the Lutheran Hrethren of Ain.9,000 

Church of the Lutheran Confession.9,007 

Evangelical Lutheran Synod.17,804 

Erre Lutheran Congregations, 

The Association of.13,471 

•Lutheran Church in America.2,986,970 

•Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.2,769,594 

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.388,865 

^fennonites: 

Church of Cod in Christ (Mcnnonitel.6,204 

General Conference of Mcnnonite Brethren 

Churches.15,520 

Mcnnonite Church.92,390 

Mcnnonite Church, The General Conference. . 35,534 

Old Order Amish Church.14,720 

Old Order (Wisler) Mcnnonite Church.8,000 

Methodists: 

‘African Methodist Episcopal Church.1.166,301 

‘African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church.. 1,024,974 

Christian Methodist Episcopal Church.466,718 

Evangelical Methodist Church.10,502 

‘Free Methodist Church of North America . . . .65,210 

Primitive Methodist Church, U.S A.11,024 

Reformed Zion Union Apostolic Church.16,000 

Southern Methodist Church.11.000 

‘United Methodist (llmrch.10,063,046 

Metropolitan Community Churches, 

Universal Fellowship of.17,729 

Moravian Church: 

Morarian Church in America (Unitas 

Fratrum).54,892 

Unity of the. Brethren.6,142 

New Apostolic Church of North America.22,563 

*0ld Catholic Chun lies: 

North American Old Roman Catholic 

# Church.60,008 

J^ntecostal Churches: 

Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God.. .75,000 

‘Assemblies of God..1,239,197 

Bible Way Church of Our Tx>rd Jesus Christ, 

World Wide, Inc..30,00<) 

Christian Chun:h of North America, 

General Count il.0,5<X) 

Church of Cod. 75.890 

Church of God (Cleveland, Trim.).328,892 

Church of God, The (Original).20,000 

‘Church of Got! in Christ.42a,(XX) 

Church of God in Christ, International.501,000 

Church of God of Prophecy.62,743 


Church of Our I^tird Jesus Christ of the 

Apostolic Faith. 

Elim Fellowship.. 

International Church of the Foursquare 


Gospel. 89,215 

International Pentecostal Assemblies.10,000 

Open Bible Standard Churches. Inc..25,000- 

Pentecostal Church of Got! of America, Inc.. 11 >, ( x>0 

Pentecostal Free-Will Baptist Church, Inc.10,(H>0 

Pentecostal T loliness Church, Inc.7 4,1 OH 

United I loly Church of America.28,980 

United Pentecostal Church (International) 270,000 

Plymouth Brethren.40,(MX) 

‘Polish National Catholic Church 

t of America .282,411 

Presbyterians: 

Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church 
(General Synod).31,1 >4 


NAME MEMBERSHIP 

Cunilw rlatul Presbyterian Church.92,918 

Orthodox Presbyterian Church.14,871 

Presbyterian Church in America.41,232 

‘Presbyterian Church in the U.S.896,203 

Reformed Presbyterian Church, 

Evangelical Synod.22,452 

Reformed Presbyterian Church of 

North America.5,445 

Second Cumberland Presbyterian Cliurch 

in U.S. 30,000 

•United Presbyterian Church in the 

United States of America..2,723,565 

•Quakers: 

Evangelical Friends Alliance.27,206 

Friends General Conference.26,181 

Friends United Meeting.67,431 

Reformed Bodies: 

•Christian Reformed Church.206.CXX) 

Hungarian Reformed Church in America.... 11,679 

Netherlands Reformed Congregations.7,447 

Reformed Church in America.354,004 

Reformed Episcopal Church.6,532 

•Roman Catholic Church.48,701.835 

•Salvation Army.366,471 

Spiritualist Bodies: 

Spiritualists. International General Assembly 

of (*Spiritualists).164,072 

Triumph the Church and Kingdom of God 

in Christ.54,307 

‘Unitarian Universalist Association.192,510 

United Brethren Bodies: 

United Birthren in Christ.26,335 

‘United Church of Christ. 1,841,312 

•Volunteers of America.30,740 

•Wesleyan Church.94,215 


MAJOR RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD 

Estimated number of members in each religion* 


CHRISTIAN 


Roman Catholic 

552 , 000,000 

Protestant 

324 , 000,000 

Eastern Orthodox 

91 , 500,000 


mmm 

m 

NON-CHRISTIAN 


Hinduism 

5 ) 5 , 500,000 

Islam 

513 , 000,000 

Confucianism 

276 , 000,000 

Buddhism 

223 , 500,000 

Shinto 

63 , 000,000 

Taoism 

31 , 500,000 

Judaism 

1 <, 500,000 


mmnmmm 

mnmmmm 

mmm 

t 

) 


• M.ILIIc. for of the major religion, .re rery hrei.1 r.tlmatr.. 

... ,1.. O..I hnn .Jnn»l r.r.-.ta .4 ihc tol.l ni.ii.iwr of U-elr 

nu-mN-ra. V.riou. nligio. > «l«n h.tc different alantUnU for deirrnn 
log who 1. • iru-mtor of their f»ltU. In »ddlUon. m.njr A.lan. belong 
|n than «'iw* rrlljTon 

Snxuw. Franklin H Mllrll. Prcrfoaa* r of Religion, Tempi# LnlraraUjr. 
Philadelphia, Ta. Klfur*« 107.^. 


331 








































































































































































































APPENDIX IV 


CHART 2 

U.S. TRADE WITH THE SOVIET UNION AND EASTERN EUROPE 
1974-1978 (in thousands of U.S. dollars)* 


U.S. Exports to: 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

Bulgaria 

21,965 

29,292 

43,320 

23,910 

48,120 

Czechoslovakia 

48,604 

52,904 

148,303 

73,989 

105,349 

G. D. R. 

20,882 

17,294 

64,802 

36,099 

170,121 

Hungary 

56,176 

76,054 

62,960 

79,717 

97,682 

Poland 

394,588 

580,090 

621,035 

436,536 

677,022 

Romania 

277,136 

189,300 

249,034 

259,405 

317,423 

U.S.S.R. 

607,856 

1,834,141 

2,305,955 

1,623,574 

2,249,020 

TOTAL 

1,427,207 • 

2,779,082 

3,495,409 

2,533,230 

3,664,737 

U.S. Irrports from: 1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

Bulgaria 

8,399 

20,217 

26,955 

17,951 

19,090 

Czechoslovakia 

45,562 

34,629 

36,376 

36,599 

58,000 

G. D • R. 

14,129 

11,250 

13,645 

16,764 

35,280 

Hungary 

75,407 

34,652 

49,014 

46,585 

68,460 

Poland 

265,931 

243,079 

318,763 

329,085 

438,850 

Romania 

130,516 

132,956 

198,745 

233,287 

346,620 

U.S.S.R. 

350,223 

254,528 

220,901 

234,633 

540,390 

TOTAL 

890,167 

731,311 

864,399 , 

914,904 

1506,690 


* Source: Selected Trade and Economic Data of the Centrally Planned 
Economies. U.S. Department of Commerce. June, 1979. 


332 






























































































































































U.S. - Eastern* Trade, 1972-78** 


Billions of Dollars 



U.S. Exports: 

Billions of Dollars 



U.S. Imports: 

Billions of Dollars 



’Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, GDR, Hungary, Poland, Romania, U.S.S.R. 
and PRC. 

**1973 trade estimated imports do not include U.S. 
imports of nonmonetary gold from U.S.S.R. 


333 































































































































































APPENDIX IV 


CHART 3 

Trade Promotion Events Staged or to be Staged 

by the Bureau of East-West Trade 

during July 1, 1978 - June 30, 1979 


Type of Event 


Number of Firms Represented 


Corrme r c i a 1 
Sept. 1978 
Sept. 1978 
Sept. 1978 
Sept. 1978 
Oct. 1978 
Oct. 1978 
Mar. 1979 
Ma y 1979 
May 1979 
3 une 197 9 


Exhibitions 
PIovdi v, Bulgaria 
Leipzig, GDR 
Moscow, USSR 
Brno, Czechoslovakia 
Bucharest, Romania 
Moscow, USSR 
Leipzig, GDR 
Budapest, Hungary 
Moscow, USSR 
Poznan, Poland 


Technical Sales Seminars 


Oct. 1978 "Meat and Dairy Processing 
Equipment" to Bulgaria, Hungary, 

Poland and Yugoslavia 

3an. 1979 "Lasers and Electro-Optics" 

to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and 
Austria 

Feb. 1979 "Sewing and Garment Production 

Equipment" to Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia 
and Romania 

3une 1979 "Pesticides" to Czechoslovakia, GDR 
and Romania 


1 1 
7 
17 

23 
15 
28 
32 
35 

24 
41 


12 

6 

7 

6 


Seminars/Exhibitions in U.S. Corrmercial Office, 

Moscow 

Nov. 1978 "Plastics Production Equipment" 

Dec. 1978 "Ferrous Metallurgy" 

Feb. 1979 "Industrial Packaging" 

Mar. 1979 "New Technology in Mining" 

Mar. 1979 "Medical Equipment" 


334 











































. 
























































APPENDIX V 


Publications issued by Treasury of types mentioned in the 
Final Act in the section on publication of economic and 
commercial information 


Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the 

State of the Finances 


Contains data on the policies and administration of 
Government finances; review of fiscal operations; 
administrative reports of organizational units and 
supporting exhibits. 

Statistical Appendix to Annual Report of the Secretary of 

the Treasury on the State of the Finances 

Contains historical data relating to Treasury and 
Government-wide fiscal and financial operations. 

Annual Combined Stat e ment of Receipts, Expenditures and 
gala nces o f the United States Government 

Contains data on financial operations of the 
U.S. Government. 

Monthly Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United 

States Government 

Contains monthly data on financial operations of 
the United States Government. 

Daily Statement of the United .States Treasury 

Contains daily data on financial operations of 
the United States Government. 

Treasury Bulletin 

Issued monthly; contains financial and statistical 
tables relating to Federal fiscal operations as 
well as other monetary data, including international 
financial statistics such as claims and liabilities 
reported by U.S. banks and nonbanking concerns with 
respect to foreigners, and their foreign-currency 
positions. 


335 

































































































S-tatement q£ United Statp. s Currency and Coin Issued 


Monthly report on issuance of currency and coin. 

Impo rtation of Distilled Spirits, Wines and Beer 

Report issued by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms (Department of the Treasury Report ATF P 5100.4). 

importation of Liquors 

Report issued by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 
(Department of the Treasury Report ATF P 5180.1). 

Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition 

Report issued by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 
(Department of the Treasury Report ATF P 5300.3). 

The World's Monetary Stocks of G old, Silver, and Coin s 

Data on a calendar-year basis, issued by the 
Bureau of the Mint. 

Annual Report of the Office of t h e Comptroller of the Currency 

Information concerning U.S. banking system. 

Bankin g Competition and the Banking Structure 

Information on the U.S. banking system provided by 
the Comptroller of the Currency 

Annual Fi nancial Report of the Comp troller of the Currency 

Financial information relating to the U.S. banking system. 

Statistics of Income--Corpor at ion Income Tax Returns 

Aggregate data concerning U.S. corporations' Federal 
income tax returns; annual. 

Annual Repor t of the Commissioner of Internal Revenu e 

Information on operations of the Internal Revenue Service. 

1at is tics of I ncome — Indiv i dual Income Tax Returns 

Aggregate data concerning Federal income tax returns 
of individuals; annual. 


336 




























































































statistics of Income--Business Income Tax Returns 

Aggregate data concerning Federal income tax 
returns of businesses; annual. 

W ithhol d ing of . Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign 
.Corporal.i ong 

Information concerning withholding of U.S. Federal 
taxes on foreigners. 

United States Tax Guide for Aliens 

Instructions concerning U.S. Federal taxes on 
foreigners. 

Information on the United States-Canada Income Tax Treaty 

Internal Revenue Service Publication No. 597. 

Certification Requi red to Obta in Reduced Rates Under Income 
Tax Treaties 

Internal Revenue Service Publication No. 686. 

Annu al Rep ort of the Nationa l Advisory Council o n International 
iMone tary and Fi nancial Policie s 

Issued by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
International Affairs, Department of the Treasury. 

Report on Developing Countries External Debt and Debt Relief 
Provided by the Unit ed States 

Issued by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
International Affairs, January 1977. 

Eas t-West Fore ign Trade Board Report 

Quarterly reports on trade between the United States 
and nonmarket-economy countries, including the status 
of negotiations of bilateral trade agreements, the 
activities of joint commissions, the resolution of 
commercial disputes, and any exports from such countries 
which have caused disruption of U.S. markets. 

Foreign Assets Control Regulations and Related Document s 

Information on controls administered by the Office 
of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury 


337 









































. 































Cuban A s sets Control Reg ulation s and Related Documents 


Information on controls administered by the Office 
of Foreign Assets Control with respect to Cuban 
assets. 

Transaction Control Regulations 

Information on controls administered by the Office 
of Foreign Assets Control with respect to transactions 
involving certain countries. 

Rhodesian Sanction s Regulations and Related Documeiuts 

Information on controls administered by the Office 
of Foreign Assets Control with respect to transactions 
involving Rhodesia. 

For eign Funds Control Regulations and Re 1 at.e-cL.IIn rum oat s 

Information concerning controls administered by the 
Office of Foreign Assets Control with respect to 
certain foreign funds. 

Custo m s Tips for V isitors 

Information on customs regulations for visitors 
arriving in the United States, issued in English, 

French, German, Spanish, Italian, Hungarian, Polish, 
Czechoslovakian, and Serbo-Croatian languages. 

u.S. Customs Trademark Information. 

List of most popular tourist items prohibited or 
restricted importation because the trademark owners 
have recorded their marks with the Treasury Department. 

Book sCustoms. 

Information about copyright restrictions or prohibitions 
applying to importation of books. 

U.S ^_Iruport_ Pe auirements 

General statement of U.S. Customs requirements for 
imported merchandise. 


338 




















































































































Prosp ective Imports--Cu stom s Duty 

Explains how importers may obtain a binding U.S. 
Customs duty ruling on items before importation. 

-Import Quota 

Summary of information on import quotas administered 
by U.S. Customs Service. 

Drawback 

A nontechnical leaflet to explain drawback--how to 
obtain a duty refund on certain exports. 

Marking of Country of Origin 

Customs requirements for marking imported merchandise 
with name of country’’ of origin. 

Alcoholic Beverages 

General customs requirements for importing alcoholic 
beverages for commercial distribution. 

Notice to Carriers of Bonded Marc ha nelse 

Precautions carriers and customhouse brokers should 
take to safeguard merchandise moving in-bond. 

Importing into th e Unite d States 

A 100-page booklet for foreign exporters planning 
to ship goods to the United States. 

Customs Regulations of the United States 

A looseleaf volume of regulations for carrying out 
customs, navigation, and other laws administered by 
the U.S. Customs Service. 

Customs Bulletin 


A weekly pamphlet containing current amendments to 
Customs Regulations; and decisions of U.S. Customs 
Court and U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. 


339 








































































Customs Antidumping Handbook 


Policies and procedures manual issued July 1978 by 
United States Customs Service. 

Report to the Congress on Foreign Portfolio.Investment 
.in the United States 

Reports on foreign portfolio investment, as required 
by the Foreign Investment Study Act of 1974; published 
1976. 

The Textile Industr y: _ A S tudy of Capital Investm ent. 

Technology and Other Factors Affec ting Presc r ibed Capita l 
Recov e ry Allowances of Textile Machinery 

Issued February 1976 by Office of Industrial Economics, 
Department of the Treasury 

Essays in Internation al Taxati on 

A tax policy research study, issued 1976. 


340 


































































APPENDIX VI 



c I 

o o 

+-> <u 
X S- 
03 CO 
03 


03 


u 


U 


</) 


o 


03 


to 


rd 

L. 

o 

o 

o 

CJ 


cd 


to 

=3 

X 

c 


LO 


to 


to 


o 


cd 


LU 


to 

rd 

LU 



<D 

•d- 


03 

03 



X 



XI 

X 



cd 

ON 


cd 

cd 



s_ 

—« 


L* 



to 

+-• 



-t-> 

-M 


+J 

L_ 

t*-H 


L. 



C 

<D 

o 


03 

03 


v- <D 

+-> 



+-> 

+-> 


03 £ 

C 

c 

+-> 

c 

C 


-c t 

=3 

o 

c 

c 

13 


+-> o 

O 

• —I 

03 

o 

o 


O U 

U 

to 

£ 

U 

U 


03 




(N 



* - 3 

o 

• 


• • 

• 

• 

+-» —i 

o 

—« 


ON —. 

< 

< 

to cd 

—1 

•—« 


VO •— 

• 


LU > 

-co- 

£ 


</> e 

2 

2 

c 







o 

to 






* 1 

1_ 






+-» 

cd 






cd 

03 



• 

• 

• 

L. 

o 




< 

• 

< 

• 

< 

• 

Q 

•A 



2 

2 

2 


03 

>+-. rj | 

o 

cd I 

<L> C| 

-t—> 

cd 

Q co | 


c 

o 


VO 

t\ 

On 


VO 

t\ 

CN 


to 

S-H 

E «/> 

<u 

X) I-- 

cox 

rd <+-i rd 

x W L 

to +-* o 
o c +-> 
— 1 <d u 


i 

^ to 
i o - 
GJCC 

toot: <d 
cd E 
c ~ o 
cd to ^ 

£ c 
to • 
—i co 
+-> to tHH 
C <D E 
<D X 


!\ 

ON 


to 


> 

<D 


cd 


VO 

Cv 


5- >x 


lO 03 

-*-■ c 


cd 

CL 


CJ JC 

u u 

i~ <d 

- E ^ 

u 

■o D 
x c 

03 cd ##s 
+-* s_ 

Cd <D o 


• 



•—* 

o 

c cd 

£ 

o 



L_ 

to 

to 

D 

t\ 



c 

O i- 

Cl ~ 

+-> 

to 

L- 

CO 

C 

c 


c\ 


u 

JC 

CL *-> 

—< *-> 


03 

o 

03 

03 

03 


CN 


to 

u 

£ 

c c 

£ 

O 


+-> 

U 

U 

o 

- - 


<D 

03 

O v-i 

cr o 

o 

r 

03 

c 




X 


Q 

H 

u o 

LU E 


to 



— 

— 

CO 

c 












•— 

cd 

+-» 





X 

C 






vc 

t/) 




—. 

03 

I o 


E 




*—* 

L- 



to i~ 

CL 

o •- 


cd 



O 


C 

o 



03 Cd 

£ 

U -M 


i_ 



> 

CN 


c 



to 


s- cd 


to 



—' 


- 

+-» 

• 


o o 

c 

03 t_ 

• 

CO 



+-» 


- 

i- 

< 


c CL 

' 

+-> <u 

< 

c 



C3 

c 

o 

03 

• 


—i . 

cd 

C CL 

• 

C3 



i- 

— 

U 

r, 

2 


5UH 

— o 

2 

1- 




o 

t- 

L. 



to 



—« 

03 

03 

• 


CO 



—' 

c 

to 

to 

i 

D 

1 

X 

*—■ 

• +-> 


>> 13 

—i 

03 


—, 


LD t- 

03 

+-• X 

> 

L- 

—, 

_, 


• cd 

•(-> 

cd c 

03 


cd 

JC 


D CL 

LO 

2 — 

-1 

CO 

LU 

u 


> 

Q£ 


c 

cj 

o 

ul 


341 












































































































































































































































C/D 


i— c I 

o o 


o o, 

f ^ i 

o i 


. O 


lO —, 

LU rO 

>1 


tO 


O | 


o 

O d 


tO •— 

C cyl 


u 

to 

G 

r' 


O fd| 

* ' ^ 


ty i- 


r -» 
r • 


< 


NO 

t\ 

CN 


• »■ 

to 

O 

CO c— 1 


O tO 

U CX. 


iy 


to 

o 


O 

co 


U 


o 

rs 


i i 

*— ~o go 

o d -a d rj 

*-> ro ^ ._ —. 

_d ZZ a go u 

^ c 

<o 60 C 

-- c u u 

O to — t*J — 


co 

~o "a 


r J a. u 

i- ro d 


CJ ^ - 


<v 


^ 5 


< 


< 


iy 


u 

03 

JD 

>> 

CC 


< 

2 


< 

2 


NO 

NO 


NO 

r\ 

t\ 


t\ 

w 

ON 


ON 


—1 


—I 



>> 




-♦—» 

1- 1 —i 


c 

L- 

O 1- o 

• 

o 

C3 

hh <D L. 

to 

—• 

CL 

■— ro 

to 

+-> *v 


c. 

G 

f0 +-• 

c 

GC -*-• d. 


N C 

<73 

O •— tT3 

o o 

— <0 

•— 


1— 

—• —< 

L- 


GO Q. 

(0 CL 

r3 

c c 


— 1 E 


-d O ro 

•“ d 

u — 

cz 

u — 

-*—* . —. 

c_ 

— / 

o _o —< 

G G 

G — 

“T - 

t- 3 tfl 

+-* >■> 

^ 03 


o —. 

i- O ■*-> 

C <-> 

• »-■ 

■H O L 

(3 L L 

O — 

L* 

o o 

£ Q. tO 

U 60 

o 

< 4—« 

Cl 


to 

>> o to 

■*-> X 

+-• Z1 

r* 


c G • 

d to 

5 

Cl • 

— q. ty 

• — 

u 

a go x 

c o • 

O i • 

— 

3^0 

f~> > D 

no — 

ty E ^ 




i 

E - CL 

C3 



O i- o 

* 

•t. 


>> i to o 

u 

-- 


—■ u 


f3 X 


O O GO L_ 

u 

d O 


co 4-* 3 O 

o 

(0 > 


-O 4-» •*-> 

•— 

o o 


d C ~J d 

_l 

DC 2 




u 


CO 


s r ) 


~ O J 3 
r ' -i 

i O to 
<0 to +-> 

> >- — ^ 
o o c D 
Z ^ - 


342 


<}- 

i 

n 

-ty- 


r\ 

CN 


to 


O 

to 


O 

o 


CL 

O 


O 

go 


u 

03 i- 
-O rO 
^ a i- 
33 60 0) 
-Q -d 
c -m 
-C ro o 


o 

to 

3 


^ tO C O to 

GO 03 *h u 

O 

to to +-> 

-* X <u £ u 

c X O tO 

•—< H-l O +-* l_ 

—l O _Q •—■ +-> 


•D 

a 


i 


t\ —< 

r\ oo 
a\ as 


r\ 

ON 


o 

a. 


cr 
o 


to 

to 

G 


c 


yN 

o 


o +-* 

■—* 


t0 1/5 


• 

O to 

03 

< 

to o 

L- 

• 

o 

o 

2 

^ +-» 

o 

4-J • 

to Q. 


f— 

^ i— 



fl J o 

































































































































































































































a; c . 
E o to 
o •- . 

w ^ 3 

u 

- 3 C 

a T3 —. 

*o o 

fO 1- *o 



g 

■c 

cd 


g 


o 

U 


< 

Z 


< 

z 


NC 

l\ 

ON 


co o 

<L> I 

c c o 

—■ O i_ 

lz •—« »-■*-< 

U -m +-> (j co 

cd U C G »- 

E =J O - G 

~0 £ GJ ■*-> 
*CJ O CL G 

C L. —i >, £ 

aj o 3 —, 

cr l. P 

w)+ j o o o 

C C — L. 

-. . —, -, r»/*> 

co o cd u o 

O ■— -t-> ~o 
(J L- "O s_ u 

— o g a aj 
—1 n-( P Cl U 


< 

z 


LU 


u-\ 


</> £ 




4-» 


—, 



G 





G 

G 

l 

CO 



f* 

CO 

+-> 

"O 


cd 



*“* 

+-> 

G 

r* 

G 





U 

N 


E 

U 



C/5 

cd 

G 


cd 

c_ 



o 

L. 

CL 

—. 

r— 

3 



— 1 



_ 


<-> 



CT3 

c 

• rv 

G 

c 

L. 



C/5 C/5 

o 

■Q 

co 

i 

G 




u 

G 


o 

+-* 

C/5 


-M CJ 


r~ 




o 


C 

o 

00 

—i 

CO 

3 



' u 

£ 



■M 

O 

C/5 


O ro 

i-> e 

{— 1 

CO 

£ 

— 

U 









• 








00 

• 







• 

< 

• 

V\ 

• 




D 

• 

< 

• 






z 

• 

CM 

. ^ 






z 

<r.» 

p 





00 

ON 


I 


cr\ \c 
ON ON 


I 

u 


o 

L. 

CL 

G 


cd -m 
s- C 
oo cd 

o c_ 
+-> 

Cd c 
■M O 

o —« 

CL -M 


X 

G 

P 


o 

CL 


y 

El 


< 

z 

< 

z 

oo 


G 

.l: 

L» 

cd 

£ 

“O co 

c u 
cd —• 
+-> 
c o 
o •- 

r\ 


u <d 
c 

L_ 

CL O 


cd 


o 

CL 


jD 

-Q 


cr 

co 


< 

Z 


C co 
G P 

E o 

CL -m 
O co 
— >, 
G to 
> 

G c— 
"U G 


C CL 

- £ 
o o 
• ) u 


cd 


cd G 

I u +-* 

CO — ZJ 
C L o. 

cd g E 
i- P o 

h <5: o 


< 

z 


l\ 

r\ 

ON 


co 

G 

f— 

cd 

a, 

L- G 
G co 
CL C 
— G 
CL U 


• G 

oo ■c 


G 

+-> 

G 

N 

G 

CL 


G 

CL 


343 


involved 










































































































































































































































































































































































































































co 


X 

<D 

U 


co 

+-> 

C 

0 


o 


+-> o 

O U 


a 
• d 

-*-> -- 

co rtf 

LU > 


ttf 

zz 

D 


a 

s_ 

m-h ZJ 
O +-> 
03 

<L> C 
4-> txC 
ttf 

C C/i 


u 

co 

O 

n 


CO 

-- C- 

C O 

3 c 

§ r 

O rtf 
U CL 


oo o 

t\ OO 
ON CN 


I 

u 

X 

O CJ 
s- C 
Cl <U 
N 

L. C 

o o 

4-i _Q 
O «+H 

co O 

r- 

o c 

u o 

-t +- 


u 

£ 

c 

cc 


to 

ttf 

co U 


C — 

« E 

CC 

o 

X u-\ 
— </> 
»- 

O ^ 

^ o 


VC . 

CN —, 

^> £ 


< 

2 


i\ 

ON 


x +-• 
c c 
fa rtf 

CL CL 


u <u 

-Q 

L. •—I 

O SH 
+-> 

co o 
<u — 

^ _o 
— 1 ta 

O -M 
CL co 


< 

2 



o 


u 

£ 

o 




c. 



O 

■ 4 —* 



• 

4—» 


X 


E 

ta 

o 


1_ 

L- 

o 

(J 

a 

L_ 


• 

ta 




r“ 

o 

fa 

2> 

CL 

< 

CL 

•8 

CJ 

t- 



>. 

1 — 


o 

u 


< 

2 


£ 


S 


344 


































































































—■* 

c 



+-> 




—« 

£ 

O Jd 

u 



— 


o 


< 

rd 




*- £ 


+-» 

to C 




•v 

0) 

c c 

o 

to O 

+-> 




c ^ 

rd 


O 

c 



"O 

+-> 0 

—« 

+-> 

G s- 

o 



td 

i- . 

L. tSl 

3 

<L> 

<J 


CO 

4_j 

i_ 

td 

ro +-> 

JO 

ao +-> 



4-> 

G—. 

aom 


c td 

<+H 



U 

—• 

—' —i 

•s 

•—i —i 

o 



O 

td td 

3 —. 

to 

+-> 


a; 

/“ 

oj 

c I 

■M 

c 

• —* 

O -M 

CQ 

+-> 

c 

O to 

G O 

o 

3 



3 

to . 

O L. 

rd 

v. —i 


-M O 

o u 

O 

U 

— C 
td —i 

to o 
3 «H 

G 

rd +■» 

£ — 

td 

> 


<L> 
ao 
—> c 
O rd 

O i_ 

O 

- CuO 

o c 
o o 

to — 

-to- —. 

<D 03 

E - 

o +-> 

+-> to C 

c o 

ro -m -(-> 
'-DO 
CC_Q Q. 


"O 

o 


<u 

* D 
+-> —I 

to rd 

u > 


< 

2 


< 

2 


c 

o 


rd 

c 

o 

o| 

o 

rd I 
o c| 
+-» 
rd 

C oo| 


< 

2 


vO 

l\ 

ON 


to 
+-* 
to i_ 
td 

u u 


< 

2 


i 

cr\ vo 
ON ON 


U 

— o 
rd —- 

J- O 


3 c 
u o 


u 

to 

o 

r' 


>> —i to 
+-■ 

3 U 
■a »- 3 
o i_ 

>->'+-( -i- 1 

> 

rd j- T3 
O O C 
dl 


to rd 
rd N 

td — 
v- rd 

4—> ZZ 

to O 


— rd 
tO s- 


to 

•— t_ | 

C <0 


*— 

>— L- 

O 03 
U G 


t 

c 

td 

rd 

G 


X 

o 

G 

E 


rd 

U 


< 


< 

2 


< 

2 


r\ 

r\ 

ON 


tc 

O to 
— "D 
O —■ 


-C to 

(J *tH L. 

a o td 


■oo-o 
c — o 
td -*-* o 
u 

-t-* 3 
C 0> >> 
O O _Q 
£ >- rd 
G G _Q 

3 v- !_ 
O' O O 
LlJ t+t H-. 


< 

2 


1/ 


to J- 
• rd 



C 


i 



u 

C 



<D 


• — 

—i 


Q 

• 

+-» 

td 


o 

ao 

C~ 

•M 

C 

— 

(— 

o 

c 

rd 

U 

LU 

U 

<L> 

U 



< 


rJ 

< 

o 

G 


D 

G 


345 

































































tO 


<D 

— fc 
O 

O (J 


to 03 

U > 


03 


Ly L_ 
*_ 

03 — I 

C on 


L_ 

o 

to 

o 


to 




o I 


VO L- 


O 

03 


O 


O 

U 


< 

2 

to 

k~ 

03 

O 

>, 

o 


VC 

r\ 

CTn 


to 


03 


03 

U 


O to o 

CC ■*-* '— 

*“ u u 


O U v 

o z 

V- 03 
to Cl 
—• to 

03 M U 

u c —. 

P -li to 
O L 03 
_C O — 
\J ^ Cl 



r — 


<-v 

r* 


346 



















CO 


to 


j- O 
O F 


O U 
o 


to td 
U > 


O 

+-> 

- 

L. 

r ' 


o 

td 

O C 
-*-* tC 
rd —• 
C on 


o 

+-> 

CL| 

u 

to 


to 
C O 

3 c 
c 

E - 

G rd 
U CL 


o 

c 


co 


rd 

CL 


o 

u 


-CO- C 


NO 

tp 

ON 


tC 

•—« ~ 
u o 

3 O 

~o «*-< 
o 

v- >, 


O to 
_Q -O (J 
3 O > 

< -> E 


''S 

co 

co 

2> 


>- U 
fd 3 


o 

CL-3 

~ z 

to £ 

0 

L. 

— Q. 

•> l_ 

+-» • 

— 1 

0 CL 

' 

O 3 

•3 

0 — 

j- cr 

fd c 

U £ 

td o 



-C 


■3 10 

tO M-t 

S- +-> 

c . 

o 

0 c 

O CN 

to 

+-* 0 

U -CO- 

• • 

u - 

r- 

- C 

3 >p 

O 

to 1_ 


0 td 

0 

E E 

U CL 

< HH 

• 

• 

Ip . 

IP, — 

< 

• 

CNJ — 

• 

(N — 

-co- F 

2 

-co- F 


O 

+-> 

U 

0 

p 


o :p 


< 

2 


rp 

ip 

ON 


rd 

+-> •—. 
c > 
O rd 
F "O 

CL — 

— o 

C r 

o c 


c to 


< 

2 


ip 

ON 


I 

o 

— 

<J 


CL to 


-C o 


td 

"3 +-* o 
o o o 
c +-> o 
so 

- to O 
to +-> o 

C CN 
to rd 
+-*—>> 

U Q. -M 
cd •- . 

J- CM u l. 
+-* rd >s 
C t— Q_\ 
O O rd +-> 
U *+h u £ 


< 

2 


00 

CN 


IP 

rp 

CN 


o 

to 

rd i 
JC Cp 

Q _ 

o 

to CL 
td 

tC 1- 

o 


CL JC 

td +-■ 

M-t . 

0 

td 

u 

-t—‘ 

;p 

t- JC 

>. 3 

to td 

to to 

0 

c- "3 

r- , 

coo 

m O 

O O 

_, ^ 

•—■ — c 

rd 

C s- 

to tr; 

to 0 O 

■*-> —1 

-- CL 

C CL 

c r“ , 

C —• 

JC 

O 3 

03 >, 

td £ 

U 1 - 

u u 

U U -C 

—1 •—< 

td 0 

d 

— 0 +-* 

CL co 


-J O 

—J +-> 0 

L_ 

O 

1 CL 

0 £ 
c — 

_ 2 I £ 

en sin- 

g 

• 

• 

O O 

U i- 

< 

< 

O 1- 

— 0 

• 

• 

(— CL 

-J -M 

2 

2 


o 

ZD 

r~ . _ 

o -Q 

•— L. 

c fd 
O 


L- O 
rd —> 
£ rd 

o E 
+-> 

y g 

L. 

- rd 


to 


O 

CJ 


o 

u 


o u 
to ro 
C L. 

o +- 

L. > c 

o o 

jj -t-> 

U CO 3 
3 3 

to 


o — 

to • — 
-CO- F 


< 

2 


ip 

rp 

CN 


cp to 
to c 
o — 

o — 


u *3 
<L» 

+-> to 
rd 

"3 to 

r" 

td "3 
+-> rd +-> 
o—o 

CL O Q. 

3 L. 3 
CO ~ 
til “h 0 


I 

£ 

o 

t- +-> 

CL t- 
O O 
•m CL 

> £ 
< - 


O — 

u o 
£ o 


< to 


347 




















































































































































































































to o 
•- JC. m-h 
■M O 

■M 

—• o ^ 
+-> c 
<V rd 

— 00 
•- C ~ 
_C •- -M 
^•D U 
rd rd 

<U hm 


s- to I—I 

nJ c 
-c o 
u — . 

-M +-> 

o ctj u 

> •- < 

o +-> 

-Q O — iA 
OJ to «3 N 
<V C C\ 
03 C —i —i 
-C U, 

-*—• OJ +-> 

-C 03 to 
C P £ 3 
•— ^ CO 

~ 3 


~o 

+-> 

•O < 

o 

u 

o 

■O < -O o 

3 


O s~ 

—i 

—1 

u o 

(J 

rd 

O M-l 

c 

c 

C- O 

• —* 

•—c 

Cl. jD 


X 


+-» 


O 00) 

o 

—i 

> c 

c 

££ 

rd O 


C 

r— _ , 

o 

—i 


L_ 

to 

>> c 

rd 

—i 

— 3 


O 

C 00 


X 

—• o 

c 


rd _Q 

rd 

o 

-M 

• —H 


1 - to 

L. 


03 c 

rd 


u o 

00 ! 

1 - 

—1 

c 

o 


3 

•M 

co rd 

X 

4-1 

G —. 


rd 

E ~ 



o 

— 1 

TJ 

"O 00 

+-> 

O 

— o 

to 

c 

3 C 

O 

003 O 

E 

• —* 

£ E 


to 

o 

r\ 


to S- 

m 

O 

-M m 

—i 

L_ 

c 


o 

03 "O 

o 

£ 

E o 

E 


QJ +-» 

o 

o 

<u —, 

CO 

CO 

C- 3 

'— 

O 

00 to 


_c rd <u 

t\ ^ 


G'' <+-< t\ Qj 

—' O ON s- 
— O 
CO _C 

— E « 

O -C TD 

"O to +-* C3 

O -t-> 

"U •*-*'+-< to 
3 rd O •— 1 
—■ J£ — 
U +-* C 
C 0(0 

o o —< — 
U —i to rd 
-Q 3 O 
to —i —• ~o 
—i to (J 

rd co c O 

O O O -C 
□ Q. U -*-* 






































o 

-a- 

-oo- 


to 

L. 

G 

C 


rd 

a 


g 

+-> 

JC 

G 


• —< 

O 

> 

-t— 1 

O 


GO 

X 


g 

X 

+-> 

C 


td 

G 


a 

c 

G 

td 

CL 

G 

r *i ] 

to 

ol 

•M 

>- 1 

c 

C 

G 

LU 

E 


G 

•(-> 

G 

to 

!_ 

rd 

oo 

U 

< 



JC 

c 


o 

—i 

—1 

£ 

-t-> 


rd 


i_ 


G 

ON 

CL 

—i 

O 


o 

TO 

U 

c 


rd 

—« 


Cd 

NO 

•-H 

l\ 

i— 

On 1 

+-» 


CO 


D 

CC 

"U 

—H 

C 


—• 

c 


o 

• 

—I 

GO 

+-> 

• 

rd 

D • 

- 


g 

> 

o 



G 

-C 


O 


o 

G 

D 

rd 

> 

x 

G 
C 
• — * 

JC 

E 

o c 
u o 


■a — 

g — 



•-< o 

■M O 
to (N 
UJ v> 


G 

u 

-m 

D 

4-> 

CJ 

O 

G 

O 

o 

JO 

> 

jQ 

JC 

cd 

O 

rd 

rd 

G-l 


<4-1 

<4-4 

o 

o 

O 

o 

G 

G 

G 

G 

o 

G 

CJ 

CJ 

— 1 

— > 

— ( 

_, 

rd 

rd 

rd 

rd 

> 

> 

> 

> 

TJ 

"D 

TJ 

X) 

G 

G 

G 

G 

C 

C 

C 

C 

•—* 

• — « 

.—< 


JC 

JC 

JC 

JC 

E 

E 

E 

E 

o 

o 

o c 

o c 

o c 
o 

u 

u o 

u o 

"D — . 

•a 

•D — 

"O —* 

G —. 

G 

G —• 

G — 

+-> — i 

+-> c 

+-> •— < 

+-> •— i 

rd -- 

<d o 

cd E 

rd E 

£ E 

E - 

E 

E 

• — H 

•— < — < 

to 

ro 

-t-> O 

+-» —- 

■*-> —i 

+-> ro 

to ION 

CO —« 

to —1 

to NO 

LiJ -CO- 

f T ) £ 

UJ-GO- 

UJ -CO- 



rd 


i 




U 


X 




• — 4 


G 




X 


+-> 




G 






E 


Vs Vs 






to to 




- to 


— • 1_ 




•m "O 


rd G +-> 




C O 


U -m c 




G O 


•- CJ G 

to 



E oo 


E Q. E 

—, 



Cl 


g £ a 

td 



-- S- 


JC o ■-< 

u 



CJ G 


U U CJ 




O' E 


cr 

E 



G CJ 


*s Qj 

G 



to 


ao c 

JC 



c c 


c o c 

u 



o o 


— •- o 




•- u 


to 4-> •—< 

rs 



4-J 


to rd -f—• 

to 



rd 


G —■ td 

U 



+-> 4-> 

to 

(J > 4-> 

i 

to 


L- C 

— i 

o td l. 

C 

_ 


O G 

rd 

s- o 

o 

rd 


Cl E 

U 

CL - CL 


U 

to 

to Cl 

• —< 

to to 

+-> 


rd 

C •— 

E 

TO G C 

u 

E 

G 

rd CJ 

G 

O —■ rd 

G 

G 


t— CT 

JC 

O — «- 

—i 

JC 

< 

f— G 

O 

IX +-* +-* 

lu 

V 


to 

td 

U 

£ 

g 

r~ 

u 


CO 

+-> 

—' 

C 

cd 

G 

U 

£ 

« 

5 . 

E 


G 

CJ to 

JC 

Cr -m 

u 

G i~ 


rd 


CiO Cl 

CO 

c 

U 

— G 

• -H 

— > 

C 

—. . 

o 

•—1 +-> 


L- O 

4-> 

TJ E 

u 

o 

G 

-1 4— 1 

—i 

•— CJ 

LL) 

O o 


o 

to 

00 

-M 

G 

c 

2 

G 


^ E 

L. 

O G 

G 

G 

X 

• L* 

c 

O 00 

X 

2 < 


fO to cm 


NO 


< 


> 

o 






X 

< 




> 


< 

CO 





CL 

o 


Q 

c4 



4-> 

< 

2 


X 

< 



c 

a 



u 

a 


CL 

CJ 

2 

X 


UQ 

X 

CL 

CO 

o 

J 

O 

0 

N 

D 

Q 

CO 

(J 

X 

Q- 

a; 

U 

CD 

(J 

D 


34 9 




















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































M 

> 

X 


LU 

r 

< 


CM 


>~y 

< 


Ol 

o| 

u 

o 

h- 

X 

03 

O 

u 


u 

co 


— I u 

!< 

C/5 


> U. 


w 

<|C 

CO 

> I—. 

-03 


r,l 


L/ 

O I 


CO I 


03 

to to +-> 
c c -c c 
E — 03 c — 
s- x _c ro o 

03 03 U —. 

‘'H 50 0 X « 

ol 1- 0 -M 

^ O c/5 c 

O ••> — o 

X co +-» , 

O C —■ C +-> co 

50(11 (A O (0 v 

C —. — c o 

(3 C L U l O 

*d — co qj i/-j q •—- 

U fd +-> l+H Q 

x — ra i c l. 

LU Cl £ o •— q. 


<1 


o — 

-t-» 

>> C 
i- N I 


C to 

w «- 

r, 


C/5 C_ 

0 3 - 
' 03 * — 1 
C 03 — u 
— > l_ Q. 

o o to< 

r-> C < 


03 

CO 


H 


co I 

i- x 

O qj m 

C 03 •- 

</5 —< i- 00 03 

+-> co ^ -O c i- 

—• <U —« 33 

co <T3 V5 JO O i- 1 

•— cn U D 3 

> O +-• O <U m 

C. C -h <h 

— 1 O —i c/5 <1; 

<3 (- O O "O —. 

E C3.-—S > c O 

i~ •- ra — 

O • X —• c/5 

' +_l LO —. CO c/5 

c • o c c o 

^ X -c o — a. 


o 

F 


CO 

a; 

to 

c 

03 

-C 

u 

X 

o 


co 


E 

03 


i 

03 


C 

to >> 


o 

> 


— o 

33 

CO CO 

c +-■ 

O •— co 
U co u 
•- O 

U > -M 

—• 03 

P s_ 

O co <L) 
P P CL 

o o o 
u — o 
LU +-* u 


o3 a 

jC L- 

•M o 


03 

33 

C 

C 

03 


03 

C— X 
O P 
E 03 co 


33 

U 

1- CO 

to +-> 

03 co 


O C 
03 


c 

o 


c 

o 


o 

E 

o 


i— 03 
03 s- >> 

Q. 33 QO 
O +-> O 
O —■ — 


U 33 

U 

XI — 
C C_ 
O 03 tO 
ct-c 03 


03 

E 


o 

c 

•C C 

u o 

03 — 


co • co 
03 CO — 

> • -M 

— X c 

O <u 

> O 

CO u 
■— 1 (N co 


U 

X 

LU 


u — 

— o 

<+-f (j 

s-c O 
O +-< 
O 

O c- 
2 CL 


'S 

ra 

> 

o 

co 

o 

u 

03 

N 


I 

i- 


o 


03 

l , 

03 

o 






X 

03 


4-* 


03 

L- 

> 

o 

r* 

D 

>, to 

E c 


o 

o 

H 



03 03 

c 

C P 




X jC 

03 

o a> 

4-» 

03 Cn 


O 

03 U 

• — 

+-» 

c 

s- t\ 

fT3 


U X 


o cj 

o 

33 CN 


£ 

< tu 

03 


X to 

03 — 

s_ ta 

o c 
E 03 
03 h- 

5 «« 




(J 


•-H 


c- C C/5 

03 

u 


CL— 03 C 

•> U 

) CO 


to— 

03 3 



— •> c 

U X 



03 03 03 C 

C 03 

fT3 


3 X O 

03 



-M 03 u — 

— X 

D 


3 i- X -m 

u c 

-«-» 


S +-* 03 03 

co ca 






X 

03 


1 

c i\ 

-C ON 


03 

03 ON 

+-> i r\ 


L_ 

—< 

— ON 


0) 

03 

C !- x — 


a. 

U — 

o to c 


o 

c •— 

< 03 >. 


o a; 

03 J- 

4- 03 



U »- —< CL 
3 U < 
C -m oO''-' 
O — 

33 ~ 

tO-M (J C to 


— 1 

co 

c 

c 

c 

o 

O 

03 

03 

03 

3 

03 C 


_ _ 

C 

U 

<— 
c 

X 

E •- 

+-> 

o 

o 

c 

03 

i 

03 

03 


•-H 

03 

03 

• 

03 C 

U 


f-* 

— * 

L_ 

co 

c- O 

c 

u 

03 

U 

to 

• 

to — 

X 

o 

2 co < 

X 

< 

LU J- 


5^ 

03 

to 


CfH 

03 O X —' 

E <3 

03 +-* J- C 

•*-* c f— O 

03 03 — 

-M £ —i +-> 

CO Q. 03 03 
O c- J- 
•*-’ — 33 03 
C 03 -t— 1 Cl 
— > — O 
O 03 3 O 
X Q U (J 


CO 


o 

_o 
—/ 
co 


o 


to 


350 


























































































































































































































































Hungary (Con'd) Exchange Agreement with 

4-H Youth Program 





o 


L. 

<v 

GJ 

to 

+-> 

U 

to 

-M 

to 


T3 

+-> 

-M 

> 

to dJ 


c 

d 

c 

CO 

•—> 

-t->-. 

•M 

o 

L. 

•—< 

• —t 


U O 

c 


h 

o 

c 


CJ »- "0 

dJ 

CL 

d 

—, 

r~) 

• -H 

E 

d 

—>0-0) 

O u 

(J 

o 

d 

> — 

"3 

Osl 

v- vo d 

to 

L. 

U 

L. 

=3 

V) 

d 

vo 

Cl o~\ Cl 

CJ 

r~ 

CO 


—> 

o 

• w 

-C i_ 

to 

—• 

O 

4-> 

E 

U CO CL 


c 

=3 

CL 


d 

i~ c 


•~ l 

(J 

i 

"O 

L. 

d —■ co 

O 


—• 

• 

L 

CO 

ode 

CL 


L_ 

to 

d 

o 

to C • — 


o 

CO 

• 

o 

L_ 

GJ GJ GJ 

to 


< 

D CQ 

CL 

i- Q. j3 

co 



• e- 

to 






CJ 

cj 

—, 




ID 

10 

CO 

rd 




CJ 

c d 

c 

L- 


to 


+-> 

O i- 

d 

3 

c 

+-> 


d 

f— 

r" 

+-» 

o 

c 


Cl 

CL 

U 

—« 


d 


■ —< 

Z3 r | 

X 


■»-> 

CL 


U 

o d 

cj 

U 

o 



' 



•—« 

£ 

u 

to 

+-> 

O 3 

— 

i— 

o 



L. 

■M 

d 


1_ tO 

4-> 

Ov 

d 

CO — 

u 

fd 

CL -M 

L- 


CL 

c 3 

—< 


u 

d 



— u 

c 

+-* 

CJ <U 

CL 

o 

GJ 

—. 

JC 

c 

■o —> 


u 

> 

s_ i_ 

u • 

■ — 

d o 

o 

c 

d 

o CO 

CJ 

o 

L. 1_ 

o 



^ < 

■M ■ 

—‘ 

-m CL 

<3- 

to 




r- 

to 

•C 






o 

CJ 

c 


I 






d 






■*-> 




' 

to 

cj 


d 


— • 

X 


O 

CO 


E 

c 

d 

r~ 


CO 

r— 

fd 


o 


d 


r- 

d 

L- 

o 

> 

•— 



d 

c~ 

zz 



c 

GJ 

o 


u 


c 

o 

d 

u 


u 

X 

— 

—< 

> 


r* 


X 

cj 



— ■ 


O 

fd 

o 


u 

u 

■*-« 

+-• 

• — 

N 


L. 

• — 

• — 

d 

<— 

u 


X 

d 


£ 

i_ 

d 

CO 



— 


o 

GJ 

— 


d 



fd 

c 

CL 

CL 



to 

CO 


c 

O 



u 

L. 

CJ ' 


u 

O 

C 

O 

o 

CJ 


c 

GJ 

V ■ 

• — 

</) 


> 


CJ OO 


co 

CJ 

CJ — 

1 C .3- 

(J 

X I\ 


c 

CJ I\ 


d av 


— . 

— Ov 

d 

i_ —i 


"O 

u —. 

CJ £ 

£— 


c 

to ^ 

to d 

c — 
d o 


3 

Ll 

c >, 

• - CO 

dJ L- 

CC co 
o 

— 1 r-) 


c 

o 

C J- 

--- 

— 

o 

c — 

CO CL 

d 

to 


o o 


co +-» 


+-> 

•- 1 c 

CJ CJ 

c c 

—< 

c 

+-> 

t- -t-> 

3 <u 

O 

CJ 

d u 

o d 

X E 

CL 

E 

s- d; 

Cl —. 

i QJ 

i 

CJ 

CJ f—■ 

u 

• c; 

• 

CJ 

CL 

< o 

on v. 

to 

l_ 

O ID 

C to 

• CO 

• 

CO 

o c 

to to 

D < 

D < U d 

D < 


cj 


c cj 

O X 

d 

+-* L. 

C ‘H 
O O 

£ - ^ 

CJ -*-■ d CV 

+-> C --- 

d CJ d 

■*-> £ -t-> i_ 

CO D_. dJ 

O D _C 

+J — u o 

C CJ •— +-> 

—. > 1_ u 
o cj ccO 

r-> Q < 


i c ^ 


Cl— o vO 



CJ 

O d — 


co 

— L. •*-> OV 

E 

c 

CJ 3 d — 

d 

d 

> +-> L. -- 


_c 

O — CJ 

co 

u 

C 3 cl CJ 

o 

X 

U O S- 


LJ 

c — . o 3 

Cl 


O 1- CJ -M 


>> 

CO — 

f" 

+-• 

to <03 

+-» 

•—■ to 

— c u 

3 

to £ 

o vh d —■ 

O 

L fO 

U O L. 


dJ i~ 

o cj co 


> CO 

•M -M TJ < 

_ 

— o 

o c d 

1 

C L. 

L CJ L c 


D CL 

C- £ I- 


— 

c 

d 

O 

CL 


d 


c 

d 

d 

o 

rv 



351 






























































































































































































































































Romania (Con'd) Memoranda of Under- University exchanges 

standing with Iowa 
State University and 
University of Nebraska 
( 1976 ) 


o 


u 


D 

G 


L- 

60 


+-» 

C 


</) 

rd 


C 

_ 


• —« r- 

La 

u 


— 

X 


- c 

to — 

G 


60 rd 

to 

C 

C i- 


rd 

— +-* 


L. 

+-> 

G 

60 

G TD 

CL 

o 

G C 

X 


S rd 

LJ 

Q. 


cl i 
3 <L> 
O s- 

i_p 

60 — 
td 

CO L- 

C 3 

—• -M 
— 
s- 3 

o u 
$ — 
L. 

-M oc 

c rd 

o c 
rj o 


i 

60 
O 

O .. 

C -M 

-C c 
o o 
o E 

•M Q. 

O 

X —i 

c g 

fd > 

g 

-C X 

u 

L_ -- 

rd to 
g u 

to —. 


i C 

— o 

td •— 

—i -*-> 

O rd 

s E 

Q. j_ 

w o 

M-h 

m-< C 

o —. 

G X 
60 C 
C cd 
rd 

-C V) 

u +-* 

X to 
G — 


— U I 

■— —i rd 

O X to c £ £ 'I 

to c G •— o i- __ 

-fduo C O G i- to 

G •— r-)C 0*+-<> 60fd 
U — > O U C —■ tO u 
C fd i- [cJ «—« 

g E ^ c a « c l 

—' — «o o 3 — X) i_ — o 

uc — o td c <u 'r-, 

w td >-%+-* s- rO CL to 

L a CCD O G - 
■*-> ► (D N +-> _C O’— to 

c G C — 60— U U +-» to 

fd u — c c 3 u — o 

—' C L id-■ u d •• > C 

CL G G _C — G C — — 

— l+J U^-i-ioo+ J ifl 
COGGO60G.-U3 
—' to > E ^ rx +-> rd _Q 


c 

o 


Id id I G e 

»- E ^ 60 X 

3 l- G C G ZZ 

-*-* O +-* rd 60 U 

-•h cr c i_ 

3 C — U td rd 

U —■ X _C G 

— 1 *• G U to 

«- U G X o 

60— CC X G J- 

tdEcc 

5 <D (D IO V 

► r - , r 

60 O U JO rd — 

c u X — O o 

— G G _) f— —. 


- I CM 

E 03 1^ 

rd i- U On 
*- G 3 —i 

60 e 01 

O u [Li - 
!- (d rd 

Q. L L - 

o c 

60— Mi L- 

c fd o 

•— 1 C C «*H 

c o o — 

td +->■*-* td 
»- td td (J 
He — 

L- U 

E G O C 
l- -*-» to o 
rd c to —. 
U. — < -M 



to 


X 


td 


*T~ 

o 

1 


+-> 

to 


L_ 

60 

G 

—. 

E 

i- to 

L_ 

-Cl Q. 

rd 

—, 

U. 

ZD JZ 

rd 

U. to 

G U 

£ 

s_ — 

- o 

3 L. 

X — 

+-* O 

UJ — 

£ 5 

c£ G 

— tla 


I 

r\ 


CN | 


+-> 


— 

.-a 


c 



XI 


G 

c 

G 

X 

C 

£ 

—* 

C 

td 


G 


3 



G 


r-> 

c 

to -—x 

i— 

o 

—- 

td 

L. CO 

60 

• — 



td t\ 

< 


G 


G ON 



L. 

o 

>s — 

n/ 


3 

S-l 


to 

o 

+-> 


LtN 1_ 

on 

GU 

— 

X 

G 

D 

O 

3 

G 

— -O 

i 

• 

o 

U 

U 

G 

td E 
c G 

C/D 


u 

c 

o u 

• 

c 

60 

G 

— CJ 


o < 

La 

c 



a 

to 

cc 

D 


352 




















































































































































to 

cj 


u 

< 


4-H TO 


to 

o - 

c CJ CJ 
BO—i —. i_ 

c o — 

— TO L. 4-1 

^ a a 

V- > 

o—oo 

■£ O > 

> ■—• to 
>> C +-> TO 

' u — 
-M rd o 
to Cl —i 

a o o «4H 
s- o > 
o t- — c 

Li, C04-. —■ 


to I | 

O J- fd 
to rd +-> 
nj _c to 
o 

to 


o 

•» 1_ 

to o 


to o 
O s_ 
c 


"O 

c 

(3 0 ► 

u co 
+-• o c 
cj o —. 
o co -m 
to O to 
c — o ■ 
— -Q > 


to I 

-*-• 

C 

o 

£ 

o 

o 


o 

u 

+-■ c 

C C o 
o •- •- 

£ u 

O C CO 

o o 

V- ■— <+H 

co -*-* o 

< 03 — 

s~ to C 
Qi O -U c 
to a.—. _c 
I/O o o u 
D o — o 
I (J U. {- 


>N 

cc 

o 


c 

1- c 

o — 


o 


H 


tO t- o to 
• O _c c 

2D **-h +-* fd 


>n td 

+-* 

t- N 

c 

•(-> •—< 

o 

c c 

U 

o fd 
o cd 

'—' 

u n 

Q/ 

G 

to 

to 

2D 


c 

i to o 
rd +-* •—< 

£ lO -M 

t- •— nj 
o —> c 
hh td —. 
C —• TO 
— U t_ 

CJ o 
>h ao 

O to (j 

o ti x 
BO C U 
c td t- 

td rd 

jo c a 

U C to 

x — o 

LU +-■ t- 


c c 
—' o 

c +-> 
o cd 

— 1 L. 

+-* fd 
rd cl 
cl o 

•— s_ 
U CL 


L. to L. 

fd co o 

Cl c Cl 

.-1 o 

• +-> L. 

to o 

• Cl ‘H 

2D E o 


CO 



c 


f— 

to 



TO 

— 


CO +-■ 



C 

TO 

c 

— CO •— 

u 

u 

CJ 

fd 

o 

o • 

— c 1 LU 

CJ 

l_ 

> 


— 

•— c 

td — o 

— . 

fd 


c 

u 

+-> o 

^ +-> 

o 

CJ 

4-1 

o 

La 

td •— 

CO O <0 . 

L. 

to 


* —' 

•—H 

U -M 

c (J C to 

Q. 

CJ 

TO 

+-* 


— fd 

O CO u 



c 

u 

c 

4-1 CJ 

— •*- td •—i 

o 


fd 

fd 

o 

cj 

co F F 

> 

_, 


L_ 

•— 

O 4H 

TO C Q 

—1 

fd 

+-> 

+-* 


O" •—< 

CJ —i c 


o 

c 

X 

cd 

—1 to 

+-* C to >, 

fd (J 

CJ 

o 

N 

— fd 

fd — TO TO 

1_ 


£ 


•—* 

co 

£ E o o 

0/ 

L. 

CJ 

— 1 


— 

O O L 

CL 

CJ 

CJ 

rd 

—• 

td TO 

■*“’ TO -*-* TO 

o 

TO 

L* 

o 

+-» 

o c 

t C o >, 

o 

c 

CO 

(J 

D 

cj td 

fd td £ _c 

u 

=3 < 


o 

fd 

co o 

c JZ i_ 

-c — u o 
U c 1- C2 

>- •- fd 

td ^ o • 

O to to 

to TO <U • 

o c D 

Ci fd —' 

—' +-> CO +-> — 

fd c o c to 

O CJ —' o <l) 

U £ o E c 

CJ C CJ —i 

a _c <o 2 

t- (J S- 

C\ CO CJ B0 4-h 

- < f- < o 


i- I 



to 

o 

1_ 




— 

4—4 

CJ 



-- L_ 

CJ 


cx 



fd o 

•(-> 

c 

o 



C W-H 

to 

o 

o 



o 

>, 

•— 

u 

c 


— o 

to 

-*-> 

TJ 

CJ 


*f-» *♦-» 

to 

td 

U C 

p 


fd d 

TO — 

N 

— td 

fe. 


c +-» 

CJ to 

—• 

£ 

o 

TO 

1— . 

—. 

c 

o c 

—. 


o +-» 

—1 —. 

td 

c o 

CJ 

fd 

+-* 00 

o. td 

CO o — 

> 

—^ 

c c 

CL C 


(J -t- 

CJ 

o 


< < 

Ow fd Q 

cu 


td 

0 


fd 


fd 

a» 

+-> 

fd 


CZ 


u 

a; 

-Q 

o 

to 


to <0 to 
^ CJ to <V 
CJ — D U 

22 co l. 
0—0 
—• td o 

o c to 
BO C O CJ 
i- .c — e£ 
cj u «-» 
c cj aj >** 
LU H 02 O 


353 


cooperative projects 
under Mining Tech¬ 
nology Research Agree 
men t 


































































































































































OO 

Cj 


o 

< 


oo 


cq 

< 


i 

i O d 

— U 

I O to CJ 

CJ —> 03 -m 

i- CJ O —. 

> i- 03 O 

CJ CJ 03 

*-> ~U "O </5 

03 CJ C O 

i- X3 jd 
a j d +-> 


—« 03 
o 

u dr 
u u 


o 

h" 


03 d 
CJ CJ 
to P 


03 (J 
J- 

C0 d 

c o 

•— tO 
+-> 

tO O 
— > 
X • — 

cj 


o 





co 

+-< 

1 


l 


d 


CJ 

-4—1 

d 


. _ 

oo 

> 

O 

o 


"O 

03 

—' 


u 

1_ 

r- 


-t-J 

CJ 


CJ 

03 

—- 1 

u 

oo 

oo 

•*-< 

■*-> 

— 1 

CJ 

d 

+-> 

o +- 

OO 

CJ 

Ot-H 



■M d) 

1_ 

£ 

o— 

CJ 


jQ 

CJ 


CJ 

dr 

x> 

• 9\ 

X> 

00 


4-» 


c 03 

< — 

03 

CJ 


03 

o 

d 


oo 

d 


— CJ 



03 

•—< 

*-> > 

__ 

CO 

CJ 


co 

03 CJ 

03 

L. 

L. 

OO 

i_ 

> —. 


CJ 

u 

oo 

CJ 

l— SZ 

+-* 

d 

d 

CJ 

d 

CJ u 

v 

CJ 

— 1 

d 

CJ 

oo r 3 

E 


I 

O 


l 

•M 

<L> 

d O ‘•H 

O £ o 


•a — - 


i 

o 

> 


L. 

o 


d CJ d o o 

d d o 1- 

O CJ CL - 

U X) to 
— d +-* 03 

dr 03 CT3 d to 

U d —. 

03 O to O 

CJ E 


03 


03 


U 


^ CX w 
03 d CJ 
E — CO 
i- +-• d 
O oo 03 
*«—i 03 -d 

c u u 

— CJ X 
L- CJ 

^ o 

ClO Vf-I r. 
L- 0O 
CJ X> CO' 
C d d 
CJ 03 — • 


on 

d 

03 

d 

O tO 

— u 

■M •—< 

03 •*-* 

E 


03 


03 

E ^ 

o 

d n - 


•» to 

Co- «+_, 

o o o 

•— -M I 

oo (J 03 oo 
3 03 X3 CJ 
H-l CJ d •-1 


OO I 


CJ 

TD 


03 d O »- 


d 

O 


03 


oo c 
Cl. O 
3 U 
O 

L. •• 

CO oo 
03 
CO CJ 
d i_ 


03 s- CJ 
CJ CJ d Q. 

—■ x> — o 

U CJ L. 
c CJ -d Q. 
d o_ U 


—i oo 


CJ 
CL 
O 

o 

U •- 03 






• • 

1 

+-> 

+-< o3 


OO 

1 


d 

+-» 

L. 

03 t- 


CO CJ 


o 


CJ 

+-* -M 


d 

<u 


. 

c 

CL 

to 

+-» 

•—< 

L- 


+-> 

c 

X 

_ 

r- 

+-> 

00 oo 

03 

o 

CJ 

—1 03 


CJ 

CD 

— 1 

CL U 


03 O 

o 

o 



•— * 


*0 

O U 

•— x 

E 

+- J 

03 

o 

— , 

CO 

U 



—* 

+-> 

• —H 

03 

d 

X) 

*r\ 

o 

o 

CJ 

+-» 

o 

—. 

d d 


CJ 


X3 

L-. 

U 

+-* 

O 03 

• e\ 

+-» 

ds3 


03 


CJ 


u 

■M 

i_ 

to 

Q- 

—, 

CJ 

to to 

CJ 

•— 

O 

- 


03 

E 

CL U 

•*-> 

E 

>— 



• 

d 


d — 

■M 

d 


d 

CO 

d 

CJ 

O 

03 

o 

o 

CJ 

• 

d 

CJ 

1 - to 

E 

u 

+-> 

E 

ID 

03 


00— 


d CJ 
O •— 1 '—- 
Ld -3- 

-*-* 

d Cj C\ 
Cj dT —, 

C -t-> 

O CJ 

Odd 

0- •—I d 

CO I—) 

< C — 

o 

O' •“ >> 

c/o -*- 1 CO 

(O 03 L 

ID i- o 

i Cj d 

• CLLLl 

c /1 O 

• O 

DU o 


d o 

cj dr 

E +-* 

o 

o d 

i— •—i 

co 

< c 

o 

fV •— 

C/1 +-> 
C/1 03 

D »- 
i Cj 

• CL 

o 
c 


C/1 


*4-H 

O C7S 
oo 

CJ CJ 
oo d 

ID 3 

r-> 

d 

CJ to 
U L. 
03 CJ 
CJ d 
CD UJ 


O 


>, 03 
o- N 


O 


r ■ 
o-/ 


03 

CO 


G 


'■V 

> « « 

VI 

VI 


CJ 

CJ 



03 

i— 

CJ 

+-> 

03 


d 


r- 

D 

O 

U 


03 

O 

' 


r dJ 

U 

UJ 


354 


























































































































































































































— to 

> u 

O — 

S- +-> 

Q. to 


<r> rd 
s- +-> 
U to 
O 


O 

■o C 

=3 O 


to to 



U 

< 



td —- 

• • 


= LU 

a 


«= CJ 

o 

o 

a — uj 


f 

rd td i 

4—* 

+-* 

o 2 

rd 


■a CJ D 

Q. 

a 

a 


•—< 

td <4-i 

U 


O to 


"O 

>4 (J 

4-* 

o 

— a — 

i— 


1—-- -M 

rd 

to 

O -*-• to 

CL 

—« 

+-* o —• 


—i 

1-1 4-> 

• 

-O 

rd —. rd 

to 

a 

a a +-> 

• 

Q. 

crcD co 

D 


00 I 

«“ c — >, 

a O —■ to 

o — td td o 

■*-’ oo u WD—. 
*- oo —. o 
o <i> o a — a 

Cl _c to a: rd _a 

<X ■*-* U O U 
<T3 T3 O U CJ 

*— of_, <L) ^_> 

ON a 

"3 — -o o a 

oo—o o 

x> c td to to —i 
— O • •—< 1— 4-1 

> u > o td 

o 1 _ o O CL U 

t- o a l ro —. 

CL <4-4 to Q. 0.44 


L- I 

a rd 
o +-» 

-*-* >- a 

V- O o 

O Cl ClO 

Q. to c L !fl 

a c - o *-> 
rd rd XI a o 
l- t_ —. td o 

■m > ix a 

tc O 00 
C —' l- —- O to 

— 1 rd O. td l. +-> 

~0 O a CL — 

•—• U O _Q 

> a — — ~. 
o t- o +-• td _a 

u o —< td o x 

CL H-t 4-> 2 (J O 


i 


o 

o 


4-* 

L. 


a ~o 

o 

to 

•—< o c c 

<4-4 

4-> 

O — rd to —. 


L- 

-.4-4 o c 

■o 

O 

O O to —< 

O 

Q. 

T3 a i_ a a 

4-J 

O 

a •- a o rd a 

4—* 

L- 

rd Cl— l. o 

— 


to (J oc — 

E 

X> 

to O <4-4 to O 41 

-S 

a 

0—0 l. rd 

a 

rd 

to -44 TJ CL 4-* 

to 

to 

a •— to o c 

rd > "O — 4— td 

• 

4-4 

ja — —4 —< a — 

co 

to 

CJ +-■ o Cl •— cl 

• 

td 

x U — CL O £ 

D 

u 

U d 44 td —. 


oo 


I u 


4-> 

CJ o 


CJ — 

rd i 

o > 


— to 

CJ rd 

Cl — 


a 

- N 

to to 

— o 

o -a 

to —• 

to 


44 CL 

L- J- 

i— td 

to a 

rd 

o o 

O CL 

•44 O 

s_ 

4 -* a 

—j 

CJ — 

- td 

u >. 

rd <—4 

O 44 

to - 

a —• 

JO O 

—• rd 

O —4 

-o o 

to 

c E 

— u 

a cl 

c >> 

L. L_ 

o o 

o o 

S CL 

CL C 


U <J 

(T\ 

U 

<4— 

o c 

1 

» U tr. 

4-> tO 

4-4 a 

'X u 

a to a 

a a 

o ~ 

o— • —< 

O O -X 

— rd 

L. "C 

o a 

• —i s_ 

O «- 

rd a 

to O 

4-4 4—> <4— 

rd -44 

U rd 


to 

+-> 

a 

o 

E 

o 

o 

L- 

QC 

< 


c o 

I-- L. 

O =3 

o a *- +-» 
1-0 0 — 
to— u a 
< +- C u 
rd O 

C L i d 

rd O U C 
— c_ ir. rd 
1 - o 

rd O >-» 

(J C dC 

a o o 

a c- 

H o +-> c 

i rd C 
« -m t) r~ 
CO a a u 

• O "O o 

D E Llh 


c >. 

— LC 

I o 

o a «■ —— 
o o c c 
i- — o a 
sc +-> — sl 
< rd *-• CJ 

l. td o 



c a o o 

^ o L o 

• o 

C/) c — — 

• o a u 
D E (Jw 


L. O 

o — 

4 —* 

^ rd 
i— N 


a a 
a rd 
O SC 


U i- 


O 


•o 


a 


o 

U 


o 

o 


o 

U 


o 

CL 

>> 

{— 


rd 

o 


U 


LU 

u 

LU 



d Coal 

> 

to 

o — 

4-4 to 

a >• 

4-4 -- 

— td 

+-> a 



— CO 

to <[ 

L. 

rd 

l- <NI 

a 

rd 

o — 

O I 

•—< (O 

C£ 

CJ — 

~0 1- 

L> tr\ 

a 

— o 


a a cl 

a 

td 4 -j 

— 

O rd < 

o • 

a to 


'—- 

•4-» 

o 


E a 

E u 

— oo 


a o a *o 

a O — 

4-4 


— — o a 

— -— — 

rd *D 


to 4-4 td 

to a 

a o 


o td 4-> —< 

O to rd 

L. 

, 

cl cj td o 

CL +-* —■ 

O —4 

td 

E — cj cl 

a cj o 

+4 CL 

L. 

• —« 

^ O CL 

a cl 

<L> 

CO O <4-4 

co o. i 

- < 

4-4 

a — <j\ 

to On 

rd 

LU cr to t\ 

LLl ON 

LU i- 


CJ — td cn 

CJ «- ON 

r > 4 -. 

s-/ vJ 

. 

LU -J (J — 

LU X — 

LU <4- 

CO 


rd 



s-/ 



CT3 

L- 

C /5 +-» 

U co 

" E 

>. o 


CL U 


355 






































































































































































































































































































05 

O 


u 

< 


05 | 
+-» 
c 
3 

£ 

3 

3 


i- o 

o — 

4-< I 

>> cd 
l. N 
+-> —» 
c. c 

3 <d1 

O 

u Ol 


o 


H 


u 

o| 

jQ I 

to| 


I *> 

^ I (TJ 05 i_ 

*- N U ro 

CJ cd •—i —( », ^ 

3 CJ — -■ oo oo —. 

-. — oo jO 

O *+h cd l. r* ■—. 

i- O V (D a U I) 

CL w E 03 00 

oo Q 

O C -. <d U —i 

> o u o u •- u 

—' — Cl—- a> 

— <4-1 

fdUoOH-lfdUOoo 
c- rtf C O £ 3 3 

o O o (D C >, 

Q.S-—. C _c O tf ^ 

O C O +J J2 3 ifl 

o c o •- td —- -m 

LJ ' -Q ■*-* £ i— oo oo 






O 


• • 


05 

4—* 


05 


3 

u 


• — 

05 

O 

cd 

c 

05 

cd 

CJ 

CJ 

o 


CJ 

c 



—i 

L. 

CJ 


CL 

cd 

<d 

tCTJ 

3 

-t-* 


O 

c 

O 

cd 

c 

E 

rd 

s_ 

u 

•— 

o 


to 



_c 

05 


— 

05 



to 

cd 

+-• 

05 

05 

c 

u 

u 

cd 


•— 1 

•— 

CJ 


_ 

LC 

E 


_c 

cd 

L. 

CJ 

o 

u 

+-> 

o 

JC 

L. 

3 

cd 


u 

CL 

05 

u 


l 

O > 

oo 

DC .. oo <d +-> u 

C OO Cd 4-> fd —< 

— CJ 3 05 — 05 

-* — »- 3 >4 

r- oi (d u o x: 

O >> —, Cl 

£ -c c — -a o 

CL-- O C s- 

• ^ O) Cd 4-> 

to c 05 O0 

C o •*-* 05 05 Cd 

•— cj (d u 

— 1 Cl 3 •— CJ 

O 3 —>_C 05 —. 

■o o o u >> 4-4 

o L l oo 

E to Cl oo Cl-— 


U C I I 4-. 

— 1 — 1 C C c 05 

-c o cd 3 cj 

C •~^05(J —I C (J 

O 00 CJ a (D l 
CJ 05 —■ — DO 3 

aun^(dtf(do 

tfl-U05UCC05 

Otffljid — (d<d4> 

i- o —. c F l- 

DO oo o Cl _c C 

CJ i- O O "O v- 

DC i- CL 3 O •— c CJ 

c *o -m +-> cd ■*-* 
—i u +- 3 o U (d 

CJ C —• s- 3 to £ 

L. -M — (J "3 L. c 
O Cd o C Dn 4-> s -1 

iZ ^ —— 1 x: oo c o 


CJ I i 

£ c o 

{— 1 O s- CJ 

= «- CL > I 

— c —. c 

c > o I- o CJ 

o c o > — 

UJ 05 —- C U 

Cl cj cd —>05 
=J ^ DO £ 

O O c £ >H 

i- idm u o 

DO CJ jC —i 

a (J = jc cj 

to C CJ £ DO 

C 3 —> -*—* c 

•— 3 cd cd oo cd 

— 4-* £ 4- _c 

»- mh C — (J (J 

o c cj — cj x 

^ - £ U —* cj 


nt 

r a- 

on 

n i - 

(Nl 


c 

cd 

4— 1 

CJ CJ *3 

•4— 1 J3 

ON 


o 

c +-» 

£ CL c 

C U 


4-* 

• -H 

3 C 

CJ O rd 

CJ CJ 

^ . 

c 

*♦-» 

£ 3 

CJ O 

E *- 

3 


3 "3 
/~ 

cd 

c £ 

>- CJ CJ 

c 

£ 

i_ 

O 3 

to O 

O "3 

o 

3 cd 

3 

i_ 3 

< <*1 C 

i_ c 


3 

CL 

•— s_ 

O CJ 

DO Cd 

4— 1 I\ 

L» CJ 

O 

> DO 

jC — 

05 DO CJ >\ 

< 

(j 

cd 

s_ Cn 

DO — 1 

<4-1 

o 

U 

c < 
UJ 


o *3 

CL c 

l 3 


O 

c 


F CO 


CO 
• c 
D o 


o u 

—« CJ 

■M {— 


CL — 

to <4-1 

to — 
D ^ 
i c 

• CJ 

to — 

• cj 

D c/> 


<u —. 

Cl 

O "3 

o a 

u £ 

CJ 

— c 

cd cj 

U i- 


CL +-* —* 
to c cd 

00 CJ u 

X- 

l u c 

• to JC 
to U 

• C CJ 

X O {- 


c 
CL o 
to •- 
to +-* 
D 

i 


u 

CJ 


to o 

D CL 


•3 


C 


cd 

CL 

— 

to 

o 

to 

CL 

D 


CL 

to 

to 

D 


cd 

i_ 

CJ 

f 

cd 


CL 


DO 

>> o 

DO — 

o o 

-- L. 

o ~o 
1- >> 

o X 

CJ 

+-> TJ 
CJ C 

-> rtf 


"3 

c 

cd cd 
+-> 

05 Cd 

tot; 

c 

•- Xl 
+-> C 

cj cd 

CJ 05 

£ ftf cj 

— DC 

» o) c 

05 O Cd 
+-* CljC 
05 £ u 
- >^ X 
-f-> 05 Cj 


356 

































































































m 

<D 


U 

< 








w 


</) 

l 



0 

1 





CD 



-C 




1_ 

X! 


-*-> 


• —H 

*4-f 


to 


u 

■ 

o 

CD 

.c 

C 

00 

■D 

o 


• -H 

CD 


- 

o 

s_ 

u 

—i 

+-> 

3 



*4-1 

_c 

+-> 

tt. 

u 

03 

L_ 

o 

U 

4-> 

to 



+-> 

c 

£ 


-C 

03 

—> 

CD 

to 

-f-> 

• -h 

CD 


03 



in 

CD 


•—> 


c 

u 

-C 

*4-1 


or 

03 


co 

T3 

O 

>4 

CD 

L_ 

+-> 

o 

+-> 

o: 

+-> 

T3 

CD 

C 

0- 


£ 

CD 



< 

03 

C 


03 

CL 

O 

to 


c 

o 





-t-> in 

in (D 
—i to 
-C oo 
03 
CD 

*4-1 "u 

•- C 

_l 03 


£ C •*-> oo 

O O « (fl 

U w N H) O 

<d <d u 

i— —• oo _C 

o U <L) +-> • 

—. <d ■— s- on 

03 Cl t- O • 

£ ^ <d 2 D 


oo 

+-> 

C 

CD 

£ 

CD 

<D 


C to 

O CD 

■M T) 
c D c 
+-> o3 

£ c/5 <d 

CD u 

<D C O 


00 

< 


c 

c 


DC — 

C/5 -M 
C/5 03 


O 


ID 

i 


s- C5 
<D H 05 
Cl +-> 

O <JN 

• O *4H -C 

ID U o — 


C/5 


c 

O I 

u 

+-> <u 
C -M 
CD O 

E *- 

CD CL 
<D 

L_ -- 

00 03 
< +-* 
c 

DC <D 
c/5 £ 
C/5 C 

D o 


i 

C/5 


L- 

- c 
> o 
• c — 

DID v 



L_ 

o 

o 

• —* 

■M 

>4 

03 


N 

4-> 

• —i 

c 

C 

C3 

o 

03 


U 


o 


on 

co 

D 


<D 


03 

<D 


H 


03 


>4 


4—* 

Cl 

03 

u 

L. 

CD 

00 

’ i 

o 

JD 

c 

ZJ 

03 

col 

CD 


U 

O 


357 
























































tO 

G I 


u 

<! 


o 

■(-> 

to 

tO 

O 

u 

o 

o 

> 

ors 

(A) G 

r- . 

5 ■o 

+-> Z3 
X 

G to 



to 1 

+-< 



+-> 

u x: 


• —< 

C 

G u 


L. 

G 

—- +-> 

c 

L. 

F 

O 03 


G 


s- X 


_C 

O 

X 

to 



X> 

+-» 

to 

• —< 

+- c 

u 

03 

> 

C 03 

o 


c 

G 

•’—* 

to 

G 

F 50 

o 

03 


to C 

L- 

G 

V\ 

to —1 

CL 

l_ 

00 

G C to 


03 

<L> 

to —i g 

4 —» 


•—* 

to —, , 

c 

_C 

“a 

03 T3 

•—* 

u 

d 

"D =3 

o 

13 

4~» 

—H C +-> 

r-) 

to 

V) 

03 03 to 


•O 

f— 

03 


i 


O 03 Q. 

— - E v 

■*-’ I • M V) L 

C O C >, to G 

l. qj 

o a u > ^ u 

^ to U L U (3 

1- +-■ <L» =J o F 

to 03 c 

<u g •— 

— >. o c c 

+-* —- o o 

—. fSJ 

> O to _X 

-' +-* 03 -M C 

-m X Z3 

u a — 

< c u 


c 

o 


rtf 

tO 


to 

*- U 03 G 

=3 O E > 

tO -M C 

to “D —< 
C C 
to 03 


to 


•m c s_ to “a 

U (3 l CC o 

o —■ g c a 

—> clx: •— <+n 


to 


O 

<u 

o 


< 


*-■ I 

a g 

> ~o 

O O U *«-i C 

0O XT — o 03 

•*-’ >4-1 

"C -— G to 


o x: 

O to 
£ - 
^ u. 

G to 



* 

4—* 

4-* 

a> 


X3 x: 

4-* 

03 

o 

r“ 

3 

•— 


to 

to 


L_ 

o 

4—» 

L- 


F_* 

. _ 

to 

v»—» 

•— 

• — 

o 


?5 — 

4—* 

G 


u 

4—» 

_d 

■c C 

i- o 

C 

U 

to 

or. 

to 

to 

Q. 

tO CL 

(D 

■—• 

4~» 


d 

• — 

03 — 

O 


> 

to 

O 

•—• 

Ld 

«- 2 

>- T3 

U 

L. 


—• 



to -*-■ 

n r— 

CO 

g 

4~* 

4—» 

_d 

O 

o c 

03 


or 

r“ 

d 

u 

c 

c 03 

+-• 

CO 


o 

f3 

L- 


03 — 

c • 

<!> 

to 

• — 

— 

d 

L- 

G 

— or 


G 

u 

4—* 

O 

jd 

L> < 

o • 

L- 

— 1 

cr 

< 

s, 


c — 

r~3 3 

o 


I 

• —< 

“D >+-( 

03 O +-> 

+-* c c 

t3 -X G —. 
C C -O 
C 03 ■ t_ 

>*-i —< G 

CL, G +- J1 
to c C 
C. 03 o3 G 

~ U 

G G tO 


O G 


■a 

03 


to 



+-* =: 

C 50 



03 +-> 





L. . —. 

-d ■ —• 




G +-• 

to to 

4-* 

t— 


O, to 

■— to 

to 

OJ 


O X 

U, O 

f3 

4-» 


o ~ 

U 

O 

r— 


u 

03 O 


o 


(V 

G L. 

4—» 

CJ 


Sh 

or cl 

L_ 


O a 


o 

CO 



Cl ■— 

2 

<L> 


E c 

G to 


« 

■o 

r5 G 

G •-• 

CO 

i— 

c 

«- G 

G U. 

- 

a> 

03 

to ^ 




■—• 

O -M 

t— "C 


CO 

O 

i- G 

o c 

o 

. 

CL 

CL X3 

03 


td 


L- 

o 

O 

• — 


4—* 


d 

L- 

N 

4—* 

•—. 



3 



to 


aj 

>- 

(- 


X) 

'X, 


Q/ 

£ 
r n 


358 


Multilateral UNESCO-Inter- 

gove r nment a 1 

Oceanographic 
Corrmi s s i on 






















































































SO 

G 


U 

< 


SO | 

4— 

c 

G 

E 

g 

o 


— 03 C 


U C 

c o 

D —i 


CL 

D 


l 

<4-4 (J 

o o — 

■M X) 
so G 

E *- 

G CL 

o — 

1- X! 

6G o 

L. 

Man 
C cr 
•— >>_c 

-* x +- c 

»- D i- O 
O -M 03-- 

^ « CJ +j 

c 

o 


g 

03 


u 

■M O 

C 4— 1 

g o 

f" 

E >- 

G CL 

o 




03 

4-> 

O 

O 

4-> 







4-> 

—< 

— 1 

O 

03 






c 

c 

D 

4 —* 

L. 





L. 

o 

G 

so 

03 

-- 

O 


_ , 



o 

• *H 

E 

C 

N 

03 



03 

U C 



+-» 

c 

O 

■— 

C 

CL 


t — 

— 1 0 



03 

L. 

U 

C 

O 

X 

03 

O 



L_ 

N 

G 


03 

•— 

Ll] 

G 


CL +-> 


4—* 

— 1 

> 

G 

60 

4-> 


CO 

4-> 

03 03 


c 

C 

O 

E 

L. 

03 

G 


03 

L. M 


D 

03| 

60 

—■ 

O 

C 


G 

c 

60 — 


O 


L. 

4-» 


L. 

+-» 

r~ 

L. 

O C 


U 

Or 

G 

• —H 

G 

G 


-M 

G 

l. eg 

CL 


4-> 

L. 

> 

4-> 

L- 


4~> 

X 60 

co 



c 

03 

— 1 

c 

O 


c 

>, L. 

CO 



— 


4-> 

— 1 


0 

— 1 

x 0 

D 


I 

C SO 
O 03 

C U G U 
O l. — 
»- 03 £ 
CL O so 
D *«h c — 
O —I G 
I- so SO 
60 G C 
3 O +-* 
60 Cr— c 
C —< -t-> G 
— CUD 
•M c 3 cr 
i- u i_ o 

O G -m i_ 

^ + J SO <4—1 


C O 
O — 

U. «- 

+- G — 

c oi: 

O JC 4-> N 

£ +- O 
o ~ 
g c x 


x 
o c 
03 

a 

60 c 
c o 

03 — 

JC +-» 

U 03 

X £ 

G i- to 
O -M 
”' l H so 
C — 
_, 

— 03 

— 03 u 
•M +-« u 
U 03 CL 
03 X so 


L_ 

—1 

L. 

— 1 c 

60 

03 

60 

03 C 

< 

4—* 

< 

c 0 


c 


O co — 

fv' 

co 

G 

£ 

ry 

co 

— c 4-> 
-M U 

co 

c 


03 so Z3 

D 

0 ^ 

D 

c !3 l 

1 

u CM 

1 

G O +-> 

• 

— 

• 

CL so 

co 

> as 

co 

O C 

• 

c — 

• 

O O 

ID 

LJ 

X U 0 u 


i 60 I 
l > C > 

wo — o -x 
•—so X — c 
o < n so l (3 
<o jC LU — o 03 
+J I> u D CO 03 
W — Q c U C — 
o ^ — O D c 

60 O N 2C 03 

c to an so (j c 

03 X 4-> G q 

_C l. •— rs 

U O >— s_ eg £ 

x u o o — o -co 

O O -ml. x S/C 

1 -- 03 03 - C 3 

• 03 C CO 03 03 

co u i_ cc—-o 

• — o •— D o or 

H)£>socCo3CL-t-* 


u 


M I 

to a3 

•— 4-* 

O CO 

co 

G O 
X 
•- 

£ s - 
X C so 

- £ c 

L. 4— 1 O 

O G — 
^ 2 -M 


I so 

O — • — i i G s- 

£ 03 so —■ 03 L. 03 

o n c o) u c 

s- so o — G — 

C-MD—u— >E 

O X C 4-> O -Q — G 
G D — CL D 4-> co 
CL X so CL 03 

D !- X C L. 4- 

OOCOvm-mgC 
L. V- r3 U O C CL- — 

O — O O 

60 so U G O O — 

60 C G •— CO - — U — 

C — 4-> CO C •> jZ 

— X 03 O cd -sou 
DC — E — JZsocs- 
L_ — —, o u -M o 03 

O D — G X to •— G 

£S -C U COG — 4- so 


60 


CO c 
CO G 

i G 

• G 
CO s- 

• 60 

X < 


co 

co 


G 

CL 

>> 

(— 


U 

G 

_D 

D 

CO 


03 

L. 

G 

4—* 

03 


03 

U 

60 

o _c 
— u 

O S- 

E 03 

to G 
—i so 
G G 
CO CL 


03 

L. 

G 

4—* 

03 


03 

i_ 

G 

4—* 

03 


C - 


so G O 


O 4-> G C to 

60 to — 3 C 

-c o o .c o 

U — o G — 

S— O L_ S—( 4—> 

03 — (0 CL — — 

o u E ■—i x x 

so 03 i_ x C —■ 

G — G C h-, O O 
CL (J CL 03 O (J U 


359 
















































































































































































































































































I 

D 


to 

D 


U 

< 


to 

O 


C w-t 
■—• rtf 

o E 

•—V L. 

D 

XI Q. 
c 

03 C 
O 
to 

O JC 

—• u 

X u. 
3 03 
+-> D 
CO to 


03 T3 

•M C 

C 3^ rtf 
0) -Q 

E 

C X 

o o 

i_ to 
C 

> 03 
c u 


c 

o 


<J 

3 


X 
D D 


to to 

E C 


I >, 

c +-> 

I 4J _ 

<13 CJ 
CLX U 
c —< 
Q- 03 >h 

4-1 

^ to —i 

O X X 
03 

C O 60 
O t- c 


O 

■m —, U 
03 JD 
—< O 03 
<13 J- JC 
s_ CX +-> 


03 to D 

i- 13 13 

<13 C C 
CX• —< • —< 

o 


CO 


I 

c u 
O D 

4-1 1_ 

O JC -m 
U to 
<13 I- c 
GO 03 o 
C <13 U 
03 to 
13 4-( 
J- O 


JC 

o 

X 

13 X to 

5 £ 

— 03 13 
03 —. 

a o)jo 
+->■*-* o 
=3 03 u 
S X) CL 


I 

o 

L_ 

X c 
• —« 
-C 

to 

x C 
c o 

03 


13 
+-> -C 
to 03 -H 
£ +-■ 03 
03 to D 
X > 


to 

C 

o 


co d x x 
C ^ - c 
— O O o 
^ CL U U 


CL 

=> I a 
O X 03 X o 

i- C ___ 

GO 03 13 13 -m 

a.-— o3 
GO U o 4 h 
c — o 

—i 4 h u 13 

— JC 


u 


I I 
13 

GO > 
03 —< 
C +-* 
03 U 
E 03 


—< Q • #\ 


o 

si 


o 


Cl 

Cl 

03 


C o3 
13 U C 

• —i •—i •—i (jj 

v c J= 

to JC C -M 

u o 

C 13 —> h— i 
O o 


CN 

to 

1- ON 
13 -H 

+-> __ 

C3 

CL +-> 

E C 

O 13 
U £ 


i 

1 E 
o o 
c u 
o 

u - 

13 CO 

c 

c 

o — 

13 

to x ■ 

d O 

4-i u 

to 
13 


I o 


to 


13 

£ 


to 

u 
£ 

o o 

c 

O -M 

- u c 

to 13 13 
£ 

— o 

03 +-> 

c 

03 X 
13 03 

■- - £ 
13 —. 

CLX 
d Cl C 
CL 03 03 


I 

03 
X 
- c 
to 3 

o 


13 

GO 

03 

c 


CL u 
Q. 13 4-1 
03 -M O 
3 

~ CX +-> 13 
00 £ C •—* 4—i 

£ O 13 +-* 

13 U £ — _ 

+-• 13 U 03 

to 4 h GO U 

>> O 03 13 —i 

to c GO-M 

c d l d 

13 O £ 03 i- 

&0--H —i o 

s- -M D 13 

03 03 JC 4h JC 

—< 13 +-• O +-> 


to I 
CCD 
O o3 to i 
— E 3 <13 
+- 1 X 

03 X D 
13 C JC C 
o3 +-» —i 

CL to X to 
CLUCl. 
03 •—i 03 D 

£ ~ 

t+-* O ~ C 

O c +■* CL 
O C £ 

to (j D O 
C D E 13 
O D 
“ 1 C 604 -h ■ 
m 03 O 


D 


+-* O l 

to 

X 60—• 
C C C 

•—< »-i 

c £ 

GO—. X 
c 03 03 
•—< u 
JJ -M —, 
03 D 
£ "V > 

I <u D 
C (J —i 
O C I 
— 1 03 JC 

to > 60 
— *o — 

13 03 JC 


C 

t- o 
o —« 


03 


to | 

-t-> | 

c 

D 

£ 

D 

13 I 


c 


X 

D 


c -M 

£ 


03 C 

c 


D 

o 

L* 

• 

>> 

GO 

D £ 
13 D 
C D 

> 

c 

L 

D 

D s~ 
•- GO 

LU 

C 

tu 

u < 

co 

06 +-* 
co c 

U.S.-USSR 
Ag reemen t 

>> 

60 

CO D 

CO o 

3 £ 

l D 

co —> 
D o 

• D 

CO c- 
. 60 

D < 

l c 

• JC 
CO u 

• D 

D (— 


>> 03 
i- N 


C C 
d 03 
O 

u 


D 

Cl 

>> 


U 

D 

jO 

C 

co 


c 

o 

U 


Q£ 

co 

co 

D 


06 

co 

co 

D 


03 

L. 

D 

+-> 

03 

CQ 


to 

D 



360 

























































































































































































































































CO 



c 

I -Q 
O O CJ 
—• s- 
cl i 

s- CM 
CJ CLf\ 
X Z3 ON 

c o —■ 


cj 
c 
c 
o 

to 

i_ 

cj 

cl ao 


ON 
(O CJN 

to —i 

C 

— cj 

-M C 
3 
t~> 


cj 

> 


td 


to 

to tO (J 
c c o 

-*-*_*£ 
o u id 

Dot 

£ ^ to 


cj 

cj 

£ 

u-\ 


vO 

hs. 

ON 


cj 


to 


o 

NO . — 
IM X! 

On D O 
—>11.—. 


O 

I o 

C CM 

£ O 

+-* o 

U to —< 
CJ 

-. ION 

O —i 00 

t- CJ 

CL C 

x CJ 
— CJ > 
U CL C 
>- O O 
td —. U 
CJ CJ 
to > to 
CJ CJ *- 
"O rd 


x 

CJ l 

to >- 

C CJ 
cd +-• 
JC. rd 
U £ 
x 

CJ CJ 
> 

to —i 
+-> to 
to C 

— CJ 

—< -t-> 

rd x 

— a 
u 

CJ X 

a. c 

to td 


X) 
I CJ 
tO L. 

—< rd 
X _c 

to 

X X 
CJ c 
-C rd 
to 

— X 

— CJ 
JQ ■+—* 
3 rd 
CL C 

— £ 
td cj 

—i to 


i 

X CJ -C 
to CJ CJ 

C _C L. L. 

—i to ao rd 

CJ 

I 


-* — < 
i- —I 

O JO v 

^ rd c 

•M CJ 

+-»(/> c 

coo 


c 

O X 


O to CL O 

— CL £ 

3 •—< +-> 
X O C 

— s- o o 

tO tC+j £ 


rd 

O F 
CO c 
O +-> o 

O u 

£ -, 

~ to > 

o +-* c —. 
-c o o o 
+-> c — 
rd —> _Q 

— td 

O CL i_ 

U =3 

rd O +-> 


c 

<d o 
o 

>n rd 

to cl 

O to 


O 

c 


o 
u 
td x 


CL -C td CL o 
to -m c to F 


JZ 

U C 

o 

td 

O X 
to c 
rd 

• r- 

•*> 

to o 

O 3 
— U 
O to 
N- O 
O s_ 

o 

+-> *o 
o c 
£ <TJ 


c 

o o 

U +j •—• 
(d O r- 1 
CL— Cd 
LO > +-< 
o to 

• to 

to o 

• X <J 
D C rd 


I 

o 


I 

U C 

o o td 

to o C 
*-> to to 

- £ 

- o 

to fX 


o 


td O Q. O 3 

CL— ox 

o c -*-• c o 


to 


td 

to 

td 


u 

c 


» nr l| 
—•too 


> -M 


S_ L. 

CL O 


td 

c 


ro to 
I u 
o—• 


td 

CL 


to cd 

•*-* CM 

td CC 

L. 

4—> t3 

o 

to 

o 

—• 

to | 

QC 

o 

•M C 

— o 

r* 

SC 

— «*-l 

•—« -*-> 

—* S—1 

S-H 

3 

_Q —i 

+-> o 

c 

td o 

•*- td 

-M O 


— c 

•—« +-> 

3 —< 

td 

•—< 

C to 

to 

, 

to 

to +-> 

tO 


o c 

O X 

O C 

CT3 

CL 

to CJ 

—• to 

U 

o o 

—« c 

> O 

(O 

O O 

o _r 

td — 

X 

CL — 

u td 

c — 

O 

JZ s- 

CL to 

to 5 

UJ 

to +-> 

to J 

—t +-> 

o 

c. 


CS 1 

C X i_ 


o 

O C o ON 

_c 

•— rd >+-( — 

+_> V 

4 -> -- 

to 

td c cj 

c to 

»- o U to 

cj D 

cj — td cj 

o 

CL -*-> Cl to 

£ CJ 

o td to o 

+-> _C 

O s- CL 

CJ +-• 

U O L. S- 

CC 

— CJ 3 

X 

tC CL Q, 

+-* c 

C X 3 

c td 

— uj O — 

o 

c ^ 

£ • 

t. O <H <H 

CJ < 

cj r o cj 

o • 

U -M U 

j- to 

c cj td 

ao • 

O C to CJ 

< D 

U-DQ, 


X 


o 

CJ 


td 


''S 

to 

to 


CS 

to 

to 

D 


c 

td 

£ 

o 

CL 




o 

+-> 

td 


u 

o td 
u o 

td to 
CL O 
co CL 


361 

























































































































































































































































































1 


u 

< 


td 

< 


>» 03 
i- N 


C 1C 

u «- 

c 


L/ 

d 

>• 


o 


co! 


C3 i_ 

—• O 

t-> > 

O <J >, 
1C co i_ 
G O 


G «/» 13 

m 

- — O CO 

g g c_ o 

G G +-> 

• G u 03 

oo 1 - ^ o 

• 10 d c- 
D C3 M i-> 


I 

G 

U 


G 

U 

03 


I 

O 


Cl co 

d i- 

O U 

4-j 

O D 

O c 

+-* 

• 4 —* 

- o 

»- 

*- t/; 

O O 

u 

z - 


u 


G *- O 
i— r3 —i 

co *-> 

— o3 

d « n 


10 

c rj l_ 

-GO 


— >> 


o v 
— co 


in 


C 

r> 


o 

u 

o 

h- 


— — co 

O +-• X "U —i 00 

00 •- w v —i O M c nJV> 

G -•-■Gco-MfTJ-t-'cS-rOco 
UoozJGGCGfd OX 

U ' M —' — 1 i- —> X G X co Cl G 
3 >- O -Q G O L- G O +-■ 

O O co O +-> r~) l- (j _c Ul- 3 

1/3 *- C O co G d-O 

G H-t G Q_ —i _c vi c ■— —. 

o- G _C co O —. O +-> s- 

— —• — 1 G — jO l. (j +-> 

*' M + - , fd — g +" a a g c 

l/lCiO-DO^dJ^ —. o 
• —'X n3+->d+-> i- co G O U 

X O u G 3 i — G G > l. 

' 3 XC £ • P d •—> d • 

■G £ ^ O "C c- 1 CO 

- c O v v •OOCUCSl . 

cj '•(-> o O X CJ CJ o3 o3 X 


X 

c 

3 


c 

■ —■« 

o 


I 

E 

o 

u 


c 

o 


d 

co 

co 

X 


—■ m 


O JZ 


(0 03 

L. o 

G X 
r> ,_ v 

O v 
O O h>. 
CJ ON 

X — 

co G 
•—• •—< -*-• 
— U. c 
O G 
Cl G E 
I 1= G 

• +-* O 
CO L- 

• c ex 

X - < 


CJ 

o 


03 

L. 

G 


03 03 
G 


— U 

u — 

X X 
G 3 


03 

G 


G 

G 


G 

d—. 
E H3 
—« U 

o +- 

•M U 
03 

C i- 
O d 

+-» G 
03 -C 

1_ -M 

G 

d +-» 
O C 
O G 

u E 


i 

03 G 
i_ JC 
G +-* 
d 

o ex 
o c 
u — 

X 
v 3 
O — 

U , 
co C 

+j •—< 

u 

G C 
d O 
co —< 
03 +-* 


U C 

■- o 

O -M 
d 03 


O co 

•M C 
• —* 

to E 

— X 
co 03 

G X 
> C 
O 03 


U 

3 co 
X +-> 

C i- —I 
O O 03 
U vi U 
v —■ 
O G X 
v <u 

G E 
•»■ > o 

co •— 

U +-> _Q 
•— 03 

f 1 L (J 

co G SZ 
—i d v 

to O 
o o c 
— u — 


+ J CO 
C V 
—I CO CO 
O v — 
—. U v 
G C 
-C —. G 
to O — 
3 i- U 
O d co 

L- 

XX G 

■M u to 

s- C 
X 03 03 
—i G SZ 
G co U 
—• G X 
v i_ <L) 


C 

G 

C 

G 

G 


X Osl 
C hv 
03 ON 

a w 

u 


to G •*-’ 

< rd —■ —. 

c U tfl 
d G co g 
co d x 
CO O — 

X o o u 

i U u —i 

1/1 L X X 

• O G 3 


d 

CO 

co 

X 


362 


















































































































































to 
3 


u 

< 


*- I 


I ► 

X to 

L. QJ 

(I) w 


IA W (J 
1^ 3 


4-> 


3 > 


fd +-> 
3 i- 
to td 
•- <L> 
T3 JZ 


3 

o 


fd td 


fd +-> 

E 0 4-*—..-. 

—> fd (d 3 u 


x 

o -m 

«- c 

CL — 
CL O 
< — 


v- U —< 
3 to 4-1 
CL fd — 
O > +-> 
O O s- 
o — 1 td 


- JZ 

rd +-» 

to cd 

td a; 

o_~ 

o —. 

3 td 
c +-> 
c 

4-> 3 

C E 
<d c 
c o 

00 s_ 

• • «H 

— > 
cd c 
E 3 


3 

3 


3 

V) 

>> <d 
— L- o 
<+-( o to 

c +-» — 

•- td xj 

L_ 

*>-< 3 

to CL >% 
3 to 3 
*3 3 

— 1 1_ »s 

4-> 3 

—' X to 
t- C fd 
jc td 3 
4-> to 

t- fd — 

<d n x 


c 


•— 1 




c 


i 

1 


00 


cd 

o 


c 

c 

c 

c 


u 

3 

3 

cd 

3 

o 

• —* 


•—< 

3 

to 

E 


— 1 

3 X 


CL 

> 4-1 

cd 


H-i 

+-> 

1 _ —, 


O 

o o 

3 

JZ o 

O 

(d 

3 — 

r 

L_ 

L_ 

to 

+-> 3 


CL 

u _c 

u 

+-> 

CL to 


— Cl 

c 

— 

c u 

1 — 


E 3 

~o 

cd o 

o 

u 

o 

<d 

c 

•—< +J 


3 — 


— 1 

o ^ 

3 

—1 

cd 


JZ o 

+-> 

4-> 


to 


►> +j 

c 

> 

o 

L. 

(O — 1 

<L> 

00 

to to 

o 

*. o 

— 

td 

E to 

s_ 

c 

3 

. 

— ~o 

o 

CL 

cd c 


—1 

to 3 


o 

L. 


I- J_ 


c 

cd jz 


L. L. 

CL 

• 

oc 3 

<D 

—1 

3 4-> 

L- 

+-> 3 


co 

O -M 

s_ 

cd 

to 

+-» 

3 ^ X 

• 

»- td 

cd 

L. 

— 1 c 


O O 

C 

D 

^ E 

u 

4-> 

xi — 

C 

u Cl 

cd 



1 to 







td +-* 

+-• 





<“ 

E «« 

U 



3 


4-» 

i_ •— 

3 



U 


— 

o — 

—. 


CO 

r~ 



«+-( rd 

JD 


•4—* 



O 

3 •— 

3 


C/5 

co 



•- U 

to 


« 


• 


3 



—i 

• 

co 

—« 

«+h CL 

U 


03 

to 

• 


O to 

•—i 



r" 

D 

+-* 


L —< 


U 

o 

t— 

3 -C 



o 


to 

O 

00 3 

u 


Q. 

+-> 

_ 

£ 

3 fd 

3 


C/5 

cd 


p 

cd 

CL 

to 


oc 

r- 

o 

JC 3 

to 

cd 


3 

o 

L- 

u o 


3 

Q 

—. 

r\ 


X •- 

3 

L» 


3 

ON 

> 

LLl 4-* 

• — 

cd 

Ci 


—i 


>— X 

O I c 

m-i —' td 



c -m u ^ 

3 J- L -3- 
E< AN 

3 3 ON 

3 C to —i 

s_ — O 

00 tc 

< c 4-» 

o ■*—* z 

CC — t- 3 

co -m fd e 

CO fd <D Cl 

D t- X o 

I 3 — 

• CL—. 3 

co o fd > 
• 0—0 
D U v O 


•8 i 

to 


1 

'—' 

i 

F— C 

i_ 

OO 


C td 

3 

VO 

3 

C L- 

TD 

ON 

X 

F— 


—i 

r— 

r“ 


3 


3 <4-4 

3 O 


3 

V-l 


O 


O 

+-> >■ 




3 1- 

| 

'—- 

3 

-O 4-> 




to 

"3 

00 

3 

00 — 

3 

c 

3 

3 C 

rd 

—' 

fd 

— . 

s_ 

X 

L. 

■o ^ 

O 

L 

o 

3 

*— 

03 


cd 3 

3 

4-» 

3 

4“* JZ 


C/5 


to +-> 


to 


c 

»- o 
o —. 


— 


>-. td 
s- N 


c c 

3 rd 

o 

<J 

O 


od 


o 

O 


fy 

CO 

co 

D 



td 

JC c 

V 

■M o 

fd 

—< • — 

> 

td 4-> x 

o 

3 Cd z 


X N td 

to 

u. 

O 

X c 4— tu 

<— 

- <d O U 

u 

l- oor - 

3 

O c- ^ z 

N 

^ C— D 

u 


o 

CL 

>> 

f— 


fd 

o 

+-> 

fd 


fd 

L. 

o 

+-> 

td 

C2 



>> 
■M 00 

L. O 

o — 

CL o 
to c 
C JC 

rd u 
L. o 
h- t- 


363 


portation and Postal specialists to Hu 
Affairs (MOTPA) gary, 4 Hungarian 
(Oc t. 19 7 8 ) specialists to n 











to 

03 


O 

< 


C 

03 

£ 

03 

o 

ao 

< 


co X 
•m C 
U 03 
Cl 

•— in 

O +-> 

L- •—i 

CL JQ 

03 

JC JZ 

u 

l_ L_ 

03 Cl 

oi > 

in —■ 
Cl l- 
o' X 


C 03 
03 O ^ 

— 1 U 03 —i 

J -“ ^ —* 
^ JZ 03 

to O 60 i- 
0! — 
x ci jr ~ 

Cl in c 

c o 


00 i- _C u 
CO <o C 3 
•— 1 •—< 03 s— 
C > +-• 

•—<03 in 
03 -C >-, c 
o-O—O 
+-> -Q 4-4 U 


-L? 

U 

03 


C 

oi 

E 

ci 

> 

o 


in 

L. 

o 


JZ 

u E—• 


ci 

■m i- +-• —, if) ir\ 

CL <J -C Qj r<N 

— 1 E 03 to i- 


03 


03 


X —i (Nl 
C C — l\ 
03 03 03 ON 

E i- - 
~ ao 

C 

- J* 


- Z 

>, +-. O 

+-■ U JZ 

ci z 

‘H I-'U C0u 
to +-* C 03 o 
to oo rd—' ^ 


oi 

u 

c 


to 


CO 

D 

O (— o 

+-* O -*-• 

to co 
+-* NO ■*-> 
to —i co 
•""* • 

03 X 03 

U 03 U 
03 —'01 

ao a 

to CL co 


X 

C 

D 


i 

to 

l f— C 

ON 
t— —i 


I I— s_ 
^ O 03 
DC c 


c 

03 

oi 


> 

o 


o 

03 

co O 
a; c 
ao — 
c 

03 


U 

X 

a; 

X 

o> 


in 

CO 

c . 
o D 


c 

03 • 

— CO 

C • 

E D 
o o o 

+■* OC 
to o to 


to 


to 


03 

C 


— o o 
E ^ r\ 

— c ON 
_} — — 


oo — 

— 1 03 — 
03—03 
— c — 
U (0 

% £ 

Cl o Cl 

to q/ in 


U 

o 


i8 

x 


i 

to 

C 

03 

L. 


c 

D 


c 

03 

03 

£ 


l 

£ 

o 

U 


i i 

<6 L- 
-M 01 
«- > 
o o 

CL 

+-< to o 
c c +-> 
— 03 
O l. X 
IX E— Cl 


VfH SZ 

o oo 

Z3 

c o 

O L- 

— JZ 


QZ C 
CO o 
CO 

D ci 
i a 

• 4-> 

CO -M 


03 

Cl 


c 

o 


3 E 


03 

+-* +-> 
C C 
03 03 

£ E 

03 <13 

— <u 

CL U 

E ao 

— < 

ci o 

03 JZ 
in +-> 


C 

• Q 

CO 

ao to 
c 


c 

CL O 
— 3 — 

+-* o 4-> 
0 l (3 
03 60 — 
£ > 
60 03 
— 1 C 
03 — — 
=3 J* — 
C l- > 
C O — 
03 £ U 


l 

u 
- z 

4-> L. 
L- +-> 

O <o 
CL C 
to O 
C U 
03 


I 


03 

£ 


o 

Cl 

to 

c 

03 


I 

03 
C 
c 

C =3 
O -M 
U 

X 
03 C 
ao 03 
XI 

— C 
L- O 
jQ — 

'— +-j 

u 

C =3 - 
O l- 

• —. 4-* 
4-> CO • 


I 

to 

c 

03 

L» 


03 


X — 
03 JZ 
O O 
c- £ 

— o 

— 4—* 

03 Cl 
l_ rd 


60 t- 
C O 
— Cl 


c 

o 

>, 4-< 

03 03 

£ ^ 
JC — 
60 — 

JC u 
—' 03 


O ^ 
CL >, 

CO 4—* 

C 03 
rd ten 
S— 03 

4-> CO ’ 


C 03 l 
O JZ in 
— 4-> c 
4—* 03 

03 <— t- 
4-1 o 4-> 

c 

03 -M c 
E ^ 03 
Z O JZ 
CL i~ 

tO Z 

c 
03 ^ 

03 l- 03 
X 4-» L- 
03 C 
L- X 4-* 
44 C C 

03 <4H 


u 

o 

-X 


03 

JC 


I 

03 


c 

03 

£ 

03 

03 


C L. 


o — 

CL0«N 

to 

ON 



o 

L- 

■__ 

o 

4-* 

>> 



ao 

i— 03 

_, 

E 

-Q 

4—* 



03 

L- 

03 

(— 

< 

4-> i_ 


3 


CO 


£ 

jQ 

4-* 

f- 



03 H 

03 

X 

ao 


c 

ao 

co 


Q 


L. 

c 


c 

c 


X 

— 

X 


CO 

03 *4-1 

z 

03 

—. 



c 

c 

C 

c 


CO 

CL O 

r-) 

L- 

X 

X 


03 

•— 1 

— 1 

03 


D 

O 


o 

c 


+-* 

L~ 

X 



in 

i 

O X 


E 

03 

X 


o 

r— 

c 


4—* 

c 

• 

(J - 

C 

o 

4-> 


o 

E 

03 

X 

L- 

o 

CO 

03 

o 


CO 

03 

CL 

03 

4-* 

c 

o 

• 

• 

C — 






CO 

03 

CL 

+-» 

D 

o u. 

4—* 


L. 

° 

o 

— 


4~* 

>, 

03 

L- 

N 

4-> 

c 

r~ 

C 

z 

C31 o 

o 


<J 

i-1 03 


OI - 
o 

CL 


03 

C 

03 

r— 

o 

ci 


r/ 

co 

CO 

D 


U 

o 


JZ 

Zj> 

col 


364 












































































































































































































































































I 

"O 

L. 

03 

N 

o3 


v_/ 

c 

03 


O 

03 


o 

Cl 


tO 

r~ 

<T3 

L» 

+-» 

CD 

03 

L_ 

a; 

■+-» 

03 

C/5 

mmJ 

o 


I 

03 

E 

i- "O +-• 

M-I o c c 

O m-h ra —i 

c o 

O •— 1 to —. 

ao to 
c ► c tl 
0 J W —I c 

-C -*->+-> 03 
(J to 

X •— CJ to 

CJ -' C L- 

n3 o3 
••> •—< ^ c 

+-■ U C —- 

»- o o £ 

O CL—. o 
Q. to -♦-• </) 


I 

03 

— oo 

— 0) 
to cj i —, 
F o o 

to C N XJ 
»- — ON 

to —. . 

O «o cO 


I 

CJ 

CTs o —I 
O -M <u 
t'f't "O 
to 

to -*-* -t-* 

C to D 


CL u to 3 
CJ Cl 

C —> Z3 VO 
U O o VO 
L L L 

to Cl to •• 
CJ CN 

to T! o N 

CJ C O cv 

L. td 4-> —. 


o 

> 

c 


> — > 
— rtf o 
- co 
u 

CJ to\ 
—• Cl vo 
to 
to 

c • o' 
O co co 
—' * co 
■*-* D D 


<fr o 

l\ +-. 

CM 

to 

to +-• 

C to 

• —« •-H 

> —. 

— 03 

O — 

> U 

c CJ 

— Q. 

to 

to 

C -M 
O OJ 
^ • 

> co 

03 O • 

aoco D 


c +-^ 

o c Q. 

cj —i 

to E *u -c 
-*-• C c to 
O 03 


u 

CJ 


o 

L. 

Cl CJ 


- c 
> o 


c 

c Q. o 


-M C 
C 03 
•- -O 

O V. 
«-) U 


C I 
CJ c 
> 03 
CJ CJ 

!_ -. 

Cl u 


*o 

U f 

l 

1 03 

u C 

c 


E 

' ^ O 

03 "D 



C T> to 


c 

CJ 03 O 

c 03 C +-• 
03 to —. 


O 

c 


^ *V -, 

03 

u 


o c 


— 

E a 

—. 

o 


+j 

o — 

£ 

CL 

CJ 

=3 

J- u 

O 

to 

CL 


cl-- 

c 

C 

O 

— 1 

s-i 

o 

03 

i_ 

O 

O t»-( 

u 


D 

CL 

F~ cj 

c 

-«-> 

CJ 


to 03 CJ +-* +-> 



i 


c 


o 



c 

-—< 

CJ 

> 

E 

c 

CJ 

CJ 

CJ 


L- 

o' 

&0 

CO < 

co 



—> 

i 

03 

• 

+-< 

CO 

c 

• 

CJ 

D 

E 


c 

o 



to 



C 



03 

+-> 



V- M-t QJ 

^-V 

H cj 

03 O l. 

v_/ 

CJ 

CC — CJ 

- 

~U +-» 

C 03 -O 

+-» 

C +-■ 

to O C CJ 

c 

03 •— 

c — o u 

o 

-. — 

— ♦- ■- o 

u 

c E 

JC tfl P L 


—■ o 

t- +-* 03 C-, 


U 

o ■- c 

V 

to 

^ — S- CJ 

CO 

— ■*-> 

•— CJ X) 

co 

CJ i- 

CJ U +-* 03 

3 

U o 

(J 03 C l. 


CJ cl 

CJ LC — b- 


03 

o 
+—* 
03 




u 

CJ 

-Q 


CO 


365 












































































u 

< 


to 


o 

o 

L_ 

tc 

< 


+-> 

<u 

'+1 

ft 

to 

d> 

O — 

N (J 

CJC w 
OUT! 

E > u 

i- 03 
(3 i- H 

-C o c 

+-* ft 

o o +-> 
r F « 


to 

c 


i 

u 


c u 

d> ■- 
N (3 
• —< +-> 

C i- 03 
O d> L. 

E cl 


i u 

d> d> •- 
•- —- i- U ^ 
+J ft C «+h 

u £ - d> ft 

<0 O — l. 

Cl >iO-i i_ +_> 

— 1 C D 

• Q.— a.^5 

to Cl X 

, * 3 <+H O X 

m « o 03 

v — o .* > 

tO U ^ t/o 

c °o •— ft >xc a; _c yj 

^ ■* -j o +-* o u 

- C U L 11 I._ 

^ 2 <3 '«~i 4-> c o3 

*; •- J- O (3 03 O o C 

L_-m CL 4-. oo q. to vo._ 


i 

<T3 

E 

L. 

O 

>+H 

c 


d> 

r- 

+-» 

o 

o 


U — -M 


>, 

4—' 

a; 


00 

C 

O 


ft 

c 

to 

c 


ft 

Q. 

u 


L_ 

ft 

o 




to 


to 



4—* 


*-■ >> 



1 — 


4-> 



d) 


d> d> 



CL 


CL 



X ^4— 


X 03 


G 

u c 


LU tO 

i— 

O 




o 

• — 

v *-‘ c 


44-< CJ 



o c 


O •- 


r3 



4«—l 

*— 

N 

r> 4-> 


P< V-4 

4—* 

• — 

~ U 

CO 

O ft 

C 

c 

O D 

O 

O 1 - 


1 

t- s_ 

—« 

t— h~ 

G 


CJ ~ 

U 

o 

CJ 

i— 

to 

. 

T3 


c| 

LU C 

r~~ 

r r) ^*4 

l—< (J 



^ o 

G 

C-> 



LU CJ 

> 

LU Di 


i i 

u 03 
d 3 •- XI 
■M > C 
c 03 03 


d3 

+-H 

a) 


d> •- 
+-* > 
ft —■ tO 

c u 

—« ft 

t3 — 

L 13 C 

o c •- 
o o 

U —■ C 


<u 

c 

c 

ft 

£ 


O ft 

f- c 


c o 
O TJ 
—> s_ 
-M O 


ft Ch 

C 

O C ON 

•- o — 

4—» - —t C 

ft -*-• o 

Cft—+- 

4-> tO 

O > 03 o 
+-• < N 
C - 

-c O 

— *0 < 

o > to 0 

Puo- 


I 


•• ft <u 

C to to 

O C i t xw 

' o t_ L -H ([) 

d> ft d> > 

it O +j T3 >h 

CX-MCCOJ — 
*— ft • — 03 co o 

CJ 1- 4-1 s_ 

to to CJ 4-* 

^ c C > C 

d> •— —i o o 

!3 U a 03 l u 

cl c o c a. 

° - o £ 

. u <d 

CO >4-* o3 

• o a; ft o d> 

D T3 C 4-* oo 


i 

D 


O 

a 

d> 

c 

L_ 

ft 

£ 

d> 

U 

L_ 1 

3 < 

o 

to 4- 


I 

-(3C 

ft o 

c :3 +-> 
dJ to o3 
£ c N 

c o — 
«- CJ c 

ft 

d» to 


o 

> 

o E 1 - 
to— O 


<u — 

4—* l_ 

C 03 


O 
d> y 
> 


I to 
ft c> *a 
^ o 

u Q. 

O ► 60 o 
Cl to C —. 
W C O d3 

c o E > 

ft ■ ft <jj 

1- 4-> "O 

+-> to >, 

— 1 d» — c 

O 03 t - n) 

to u cr l o 

d> ft it a 

t- c E o 

>- O -- S- 

O 13 —i t- 23 

t— to 4-i D-LU 


X 3 

ft 

C 


d> 

> 


CO 
• d) 

D 

i ft 
t\ ■— 

u 

ON o 
— 1 to 
to 
"■ rfl 
to 

C d3 L- 

o £ d) 

— ft -Q 

+-* U E 

ft 03 03 
C X! £ 


d) 

U 

d) — 

d3 C ^ 

^ a 

C to tlj 

O S- 

CJ <v 

4-* 4—» 
C to l_ 

ft — o 

d> C Q. 
Q. •— to 
O ^ c 

1- ft 

3 >H L 

U O h 


ft 

d» 


o — 


M — 


JC 

to 


366 




























































































CO 

O 


U 

< 


"O 

td ~0 

•• O c 

c c£ td 
o 

— o c 
^ -C (U 
03 -*—• i_ 
CL bo 

— CO 

U —i 1_ 

CL 

•M 

td — u 

Q. L. s_ 

td td 

• E cj 

l/") —i co 

• i- o . 

D a-CL 


C L. 

— 1 o 

S-l 

CL 

3 to 
O O 

L.-, 

to U 

CO —, 

+-• o 
«- CL 
O 

CL U 
X —. 

O <4-1 
<4-1 

o td 

-C L. 

t- 


C 4-> 


o 

o I 

o 

+- 1 L. 

c •- 
o > 
E c 

o LU 
> 

o C 
1 - rd 
CL 

E *- 
- D 

o o 


I I 


rd 

L. 

o 


c 

o 


L. t/0 L. , 

2 ^ ^ *“ i i i s_ c: 

— — O-OOrdOCOo 

N "D l. -m > 


oo 


- c •-'o c rd c — 


td c o E 

d l o d 


+- J c c 


•— L. O V) — O 


O 


o 

Cl 

O 

o 

u 


- U nj-d 


td 

c 

o 


o 

t— 


>> Owe ( ) 

+* — ^*4-.+-.—, C_._ Q W 

^ t- o O Id — nd JZ ~ CJ 

'nSor -‘*~ lCf0 W-MGJL-, 

O N O. C rd O 4- . +., ^ a 

O v> — CIO—• L. c 1/1 

, c • o o 

° d d uD-d>h : c 

u fd D td - c o co 

td "O > N U i - to u 

o - Z c c ° ^ C ^ ° C +J 

- W rd E > - E - e. E So~ CJ 


w 

L. 

o 

td 


i i 
td w 


td - 


td 

o JO 

to L. 

f~“ —* 

td 

u o 

x 

o c 
o 

o — 
(— +-* 


>,Q 

u 

i 

O Td 
Cl c 
td 

C hn 

O to O 
•*■* — O 

td c c 
+-> c _c 
l rj u 
o—o 

CL CL -m 


"O I 

1 tCO o c 

fcC CC— L- -M to O 

o i —> cd . o -m 4_ c 

‘-C-M (d C o - l 3 

tdtdCL-^Qu 
— 1 O O.CQ.O 

totno — H-tCPddoO 

O t- -m o O "" to i_ o 
' ^ — • to rd 

3CCi-4-.4-.oo ^Q- 0 

L-fdOOctd . r»-\ 0*3 (J i_ 

— C. o ^ 3 N (V- 3 

4 - to 4-. o c u as rz 

CL c td o o --, 

o o n o > o. o tdfljc 

o w Q.o l- _c o 

C o U o 4-. — 

td i- o. td l c > 4-> 

o— fd°E>-3 — ootd 

r- 3 Td +-. •- 4- LU to to-M-M 


to I 
4-. 

c 

o 

E 

o 

O 


c 

1- c 

o — I 

4-> 

>> td I 

1- N | 

4-. 

C C I 
3 td I 

o 

u 

o 


I I 

l d c 
O 1 - o 

M-h o — 


U f— 


CO 

d^ 



CL O 

, 



. q^ 


c 

o > 

rd 

r— 

— 

— M 


o 

o o ^ 

/■ 

o 

CJ 

-o D 

td — 

•—. 

U C C 

o 


c 

ZZ '—' 

c td 

4—* 

U 


CO 4-> 


n 

O 

td 

U31U 

4-< 

■o td 

■—* 

+-» 

—1 

N 

-cO 

td 

s_ N 

4-» 

i- 

4-> S-, 

—. 

E td — 

c 

rd — 


c o 

td o 

c 

o 

L. 

"O C 4^ 


o 

o 

td 

C C 4-" 

o 

c td O 

i- 

C or. 

i_ a .'—^ 

to 

o o c 

4-" 

td tcc/3 

o 

O C 

o o u 

L. 

u — o 

c 

+-» L- — 

+-* 

•— r3 


OUJ 44 c 


or O ^ 


C i— 

c c o 


o 

H 


td 

o 

4-> 

td 


u 

L 


-Q 

3 

OO 


367 


















































































































































































Air 1 FEND IX VI 


CHART 3 


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 


Organization/Activity 


— “ ^ l a lc 3 " 

Research, Development, and Demonstration Programs 

Air 

Pollution* 

Water 

Pollution 6 

Radiation 

Pesticides 

Noise 

Waste 

Mgmt 0 

Toxic 

Subst 

Enerqy 

International Organizations 









Commission of European Communities (CEC) 

• 

• 







Committee on Challenges to Modern Society (CCMS) 

• 

• 



• 

• 

• 


International Organization for Legal Metrology (OIML) 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 


• 

International Standards Organization (ISO) 

• 

• 

• 





• 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

• 

• 





• 

• 

(OECD) 





• 

• 

• 

• 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 

• 

• 







Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 







• 

• 

Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) 


• 







International Atomic Energy;Agency (IAEA) 



• 






Inlernational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

• 








World Health Organization.(WHO) 

• 

• 

• 

• 

# 

• 



World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 

• 

• 







United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

♦ 

• 







Organization (UNESCO) 









United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


Bilateral Cooperation 

Canada 

Federal Republic of Germany 

France 

France and United Kingdom* 


Soviof Union 
United Kingoom 








Scientific Activities Overseas Program 


Poland 

Yugoslavia 






r* 


-iudes troposphere and stratosphere. 'Includes hazardous, solid, and radioactive 
xludes marine, estuarine, and freshwater wastes. 

Environments. •’Tripartite agreement. 


Erom U.S. EPA, Research Outlook, 1978, June 1978, page 73 


368 
























































































































































































































































































APPENDIX VII 


Source 


TABLE XXII - IMMIGRANT AND NONIMMIGRANT VISAS REFUSED - Reasons for Refusal 


FISCAL YEAR 1976 

Grounds for Refusal Under the Immigration and Nationality Act 


Section 


101(a)(15) Aliens who fail to establi 


• 11 TO esta blish that they are entitled to 

nonimmigrant status ... lea 


212(a)(1) 

( 2 ) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

( 6 ) 

(7) 

( 8 ) 
(9) 


( 10 ) 

( 11 ) 
Cl 2) 

(13) 

(14) 


or 


(15) 

(16) 


Aliens who are mentally retarded . . 

Allens who are insane. . 

Aliens who have had one or core attacks of insanity 
Aliens who are afflicted with psychopathic personllitv’ 
sexual deviation or a cental defect . . . Personality, 

„arcotic_drug addic *3 or chronic alcoholics 

Aliens afflicted with any dangerous contagious disease' 

^ichV ° 3 ph ? sical disease or dlsIbiUty 

which cay affect_their ability to earn a living !!* 
Paupers, professional beggars, vagrants . 

who a 2dnit n havi ed ° f a . Cr “* involving coral turpitude 
who admt having committed such a crime or committing 
acts constituting essential elements of such a cr 3 ae 8 
Aliens convicted of two or core offenses other thin * 
offenses 

ac.ualxy imposed were five years or co'-e 
pSlil^J t3 . U ! ,0 . P ! a ? t ! C ? ° r adV ° Cate the P r actice"of * * 
Prostitutes or procurers - persons'coming to‘the"united * 
-a.es to engage in other unlawful commercialized vice 
act e ? S . S ? e ? 1 ? g ad;Blsslon to engage in any immoral sexual” 

lahon S f« Sek h" g K ad:a *f Si0n t0 P erfora skilled or"unskilled * 
United Itates workers are available in the 


Aliens likely to become public charge 

A I 1 PnC ov/'l _I j__ _ . . ° 


(17) Ali 


y»a an from C date d 0 ‘ n th d - P °r ed seekin « adraiss ion ’within on 
De^i-sion fro, L !i. r deportation who have not obtaine 
permission from the Attorney General to apply for 
readmission. rv 3 


(19) 

( 22 ) 

(23) 

(24) 

(25) 

(26) 
(•>17) 

(?3) 

(31) 


thi*S!«? P S W i? USly a f rested and deported, or removed from" 
the d S r "*° have not obtained permission from 

the Attorney General to reapply for admission . . 

Aliens who committed fraud or wilfully misrepresented a " 
“!lT^ al . faC 5 to ob tain a visa or other documentation . . 


T * . . . Uint: IKdC 1 

Immigrants who are ineligible to citizenship and pe 
w..o avoided or evaded military service in time of u 


rsons 
urar or 


national emergency 
Aliens convicted of violation of law or regulation" 
dru^s 1 " 8 t0 llllClt Possession of or traffic in narcotic 

Aliens who seek admission from foreign contiguous 

velse^°nr ^ adia ^ent islands, having arrived there on a 

vesse_ or aircraft of a nonsignatory line 

Icaigrants over 16 years of age physically capable of 

reouing who cannot read and understand some language or 
cia lec t. . ° 

Nonimmigrants not in possession of valid passports"or 

otner suitable travel documents •. . 

Aliens who, after entry, might engage in activities 
prejudicial—E- 3 _-tb g_ public inte rest, or endanger the 
welfare, safety or security of the United States 
Aliens who are or at any time have been anarchists 
CQ.Tj~.uni sts or other political subversives ....!. 
A.iens who, after entry, probably would ecga’a—ia 

» sabotage or other subversive activity - or who 
would join, affiliate with or participate in any organ- 
l~a.ion registered or required to be registered under 
bection 7 Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 
Aliens who have encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted or 
aided other aliens to enter the United States in 
violation of law . . . 


212(e) 


221(g) 


Former exchange visitors who have rot resided abroad for 
two years following departure from the United States 

A.iens who.e applications do not comply with the 
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act or 
regulations issued pursuant thereto . 


Total Grounds for P“fus 


Number of Applicants V 


IMMIGRANT 


Visas 

Refused 


271 

s 

33 

19 

20 
1,846 

209 


666 

7 

4- 

973 


1,909 

47,786 


336 

1,253 

21 

76 


96 


»' 4 
e 4 9 


19 


25 


55,584 


112,224 


100 , ?(!<, 


Refusals 

Overcome 


171 


13 


1,092 


81 


274 


659 


386 

16,835 


35 

429 


12 

75 

1 

16 


NONIMMIGRANT 


Visas I Refusals 
Refused I Overcome 


34,033 


54,25? 


53,317 


231,089 I 30,259 


508 

14 

103 

39 

26 

27 


777 

27 

61 

2 


357 

4 

100 

24 

S6 

20 


616 


20 


56 


14,905 


4,233 


160 

1,243 

83 

213 


63 

175 

S3 

134 


379 


63 


133 


19,305 18, S00 


33 


53 


192 


97,073 33,339 


366,1511 83,51-5 


359,033 85,R 33 


1/ The total of grounds for refusal niy exceed the total ni-b-- of i?p’ ; cnts ref - d * . 

applicant cay be refused under more than one section of the" Innigrat icn and X, t ionat i t^Ac 11 0 *"** 


: 1976 Report of 


the Visa Office, 


U.S. 


Department of State, Wash, D.C. 


369 












































































































































































































APPENDIX VIII 


Waiver Language of Section 212(d)(3) 


"(d)(3) Except as provided in this subsection, an alien 
(A) vho is applying for a non irrmi g r an t visa and is 
known or believed by the consular officer to be 

eligible for such visa under one or more of the para- 

graphs ?™'[‘ erat . e d ‘n subsection (a)(other than para- 
grapns (27) and (29)), may, after approval by the 
. °rne> General of a reconmendation by the Secretary 
oi State or by the consular officer that the alien 
be admitted temporarily despite his inadmissibility 
e granted such a visa and may be admitted into the* 
Lmted States temporarily as a non irrmi g r an t in the 
discretion of the Attorney General, or (B) who is 
inadmissible under one or more of the paragraphs 
enumerated in subsection (a)(other than paragraphs 
(27) and (29)), but who is in possession of appropriate 
documents or is granted a waiver thereof and is seeking 
admission, may be admitted into the United States 
temporarily as a non irrm i g r an t in the discretion of 
the Attorney General." 


3 70 






































































appendix IX 


IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, SECS. 212(a) (27) , 212(a) (28) 

and 212(a)(29) 


Gene r a I 
eluded 


f ClaS «j S . of . A1iens Ine ligible to Receive Visas and Ex- 
rom Admission; Waivers of Inadmissibility 


8 U.S.C. 1182 


'Sec. 212.(a) Except as otherwise provided 
Act ’ the ^° 1 lowing classes of aliens 
shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall 
De excluded from admission into the United 
States.. . 


"(27) Aliens who the consular officer or 
the Attorney General knows or has reason to 
believe seek to enter the United States solely 
principally, or incidentally to engage in 
activities which would be prejudicial to the 
public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety 
or security of the United Sates; 

(28) Aliens who are, or at any time have 
been, members of any of the following classes: 

"(A) Aliens who are anarchists; 

"(B) Aliens who advocate or teach, or who 
ere members of or affiliated with any 
organization that advocates or teaches, 
opposition to all organized government; 

"(C) Aliens who are members of or affiliated 
with (i) the Communist Party of the United 
States, (ii) any other totalitarian party of 
the United States, (iii) the Communist Political 
Association, (iv) the Communist or any other 
totalitarian party of any State of the United 
States, or any foreign state, or of any political 
geographical subdivision of any foreign state, 

(v) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, 
or subdivision of any such association or party, 
or (vi) the direct predecessors or successors 
of any such association or party, regardless 
of what name such group or organization may 
have used, may now bear, or may hereafter adopt: 
Provided, That nothing in this paragraph, or 
in any other provision of this Act, shall be 
construed as declaring that the Communist Party 
does not advocate the overthrow of the Government 
of the United States by force, violence, or 
other unconstitutional means; 

"(D) Aliens not within any of the other 
provisions of this paragraph who advocate the 
economic, international, and governmental 
doctrines of world communism or the establishment 


371 






























































































































































shin he . Un ^ ed StateS ° f 3 totalitarian dictator¬ 
ship, or who are members of or affiliated with 

?nternft niZa f IOn U 31 advocates the economic, 
wnr?a !’ and 8 ove rnmental doctrines of 

n! VcT" 1 ™ or the establishment in the 

eiiher a,eS h ° f 3 tota litarian dictatorship, 
either through its own utterances or through 

nuhlTIh ° r pr ! nted publications issued or 

nf a he ^ ty ? r Wlth the permission or consent 

° r '“"J er } he authority of such organization 

bv P i„ hy.tbe funds of, or funds furnished 
Dy, such organization; 

"(E) Aliens not within any of the other 
provisions of this paragraph, who are members 

?° . aff ! h f ted Wlth an y organization during 
the time it is registered or required to be 

registered under section 7 of the Subversive 
Activities Control Act of 1950,* unless such 

or 1 that th6y did n0t have knowledge 

or reason to believe at the time they became 8 

members of or affiliated with such an 

organization (and did not thereafter and prior 

to the date upon which such organization was 

so registered or so required to be registered 

have such knowledge or reason to believe) that 

SUCh n/it n if atl0n WaS a Comnr > unis t organization; 

vr; Aliens who advocate or teach or who 
are members of or affiliated with any 
organization that advocates or teaches (i) the 
overthrow by force, violence, or other 
unconstitutional means of the Government of 
the United States or of all forms of law; or 
( 11 ) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the 
unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer 
or officers (either of specific individuals 
or of officers generally) of the Government 
of the United States or of any other organized 
government, because of his or their official 
character; or (iii) the uni aw f u1 d ama g e, injury 
or destruction of property; or (iv) sabotage; ’ 
"(G) Aliens who write or publish, or cause 
to be written or published, or who knowing1y 
circulate, distribute, print, or display, or 
knowingly cause to be circulated, distributed, 
printed, published, or displayed, or who 
knowingly have in their possession for the 


*Sec. 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 
(50 U.S.C. 786) was repealed by the Act of January 2 1968 

(81 Stat. 766). 


372 






























































































purpose of circulation, publication, distribu¬ 
tion, or display, any written or printed matter 
vocating or teaching opposition to all 
organized government, or advocating or teaching 
(i) the overthrow by force, violence, or other 
unconstitutionai means of the Government of 
e United States or all forms of law; or (ii) 

assault’ nece , ss ;ty’ or Propriety of the unlawful 
assaumng or killing of any officer or officers 

(either of specific individuals or of officers 
generally) of the Government of the United States 
or of any other organized government, because 
of his or their official character; or (iii) 
the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction 
of property; or (iv) sabotoge; or (v) the 
economic, international, and governmental 
doctrines of world communism or the establish¬ 
ment in the United States of a totalitarian 
dictatorship; 

"(H) Aliens who are members of or affiliated 
with any organization that writes, circulates, 
distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, 
or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, 
printed, published, or displayed, or 
in its possession for the purpose of 
distribution, publication, issue, or 
any written or printed matter of the 
described in paragraph (g); 

"(I) Any alien who is within any of the 
classes described in subparagraphs (B), (C) 

(D), (E), (F), (G), and (H) of this paragraph 

because of membership in or affiliation with 
a party or organization or a section, subsidiary, 
branch, affiliate, or subdivision thereof, may, 
if not otherwise ineligible, be issued a visa' 
if such alien establishes to the satisfaction 
of the consular officer when applying for a 
visa and the consular officer finds that (i) 
such membership or affiliation is or was 
involuntary, or is or wa s solely whe n under 
sixteen years of age, by operation of law, or 
for purposes of obtaining employment, food 
rations, or other essentials of living and where 
necessary for such purposes, or (ii)(a) since 
the termination of such membership or 
affiliation, such alien is and has been, for 
at least five years prior to the date of the 
application for a visa, actively opposed to 
the doctrine, program, principles, and ideology 
of such party or organization or the section, 
subsidiary, branch, or affiliate or subdivision 
thereof, and (b) the admission of such alien 


that has 
circulation, 
display, 
character 


373 



























































into the United States would be in the public 
interest. Any such alien to whom a visa has 

DarUUnh Und U the P rovisions of this sub- 
paragraph may, ,f not otherwise inadmissible 

ta n’l 6 \r ‘he United States if he shall 
establish to the satisfaction of the Attorney 

States anS e ?h aP A!t ing ^ admission ‘he United 
such the Attorney General finds that (i) 

such membership or affiliation is or was 
involuntary, or is or was solely when under 
sixteen years of age, by operation of law, or 
r J'.P ur P oses of obtaining employment, food 

nf1 1 ° n S ’ other essentials of living and when 

necessary for such purposes, or (ii) (a) since 
the termination of such membership or 
affiliation, such alien is and has been, for 
at east five years prior to the date of the 
application for admission actively opposed to 
the doctrine, program, principles, and ideology 
of such party or organization or the section, 
subsidiary branch, or affiliate or subdivision 
thereof, and (b) the admission of such alien 
into the United States would be in the public 
interest. The Attorney General shall promptly 
make a detailed report to the Congress in the 
case of each alien who is or shall be admitted 
into the United States under (ii) of this 
subparagraph. 


(29) Aliens with respect to whom the 
consular officer or the Attorney General knows 
or has reasonable ground to believe probably 
would, after entry, (A) engage in activities 
which would be prohibited by the laws of the 
United States relating to espionage, sabotage, 
public disorder, or in other activity subversive 
vO the national security, (B) engage in any 
activity a purpose of which is the opposition 
to, or the control or overthrow of, the 
Government of the United States, by force, 
violence, or other unconstitutional means’ or 
(C) join, affiliate with, or participate in 
the activities of any organization which is 
registered or required to be registered under 
section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control 
Act o f 1950 


*Sec. 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 
(50 U.S.C. 780) was repealed by the Act of January 2 1968 

(81 Stat. 766). 


374 














































































appendix X 


Non irrm i gr ant s Admitt ed by Classes unrfpr i i c T 

---£_^iasses under U.S. Immigration Laws 


1970-1978* 


Count ry 


FY 1970 


FY 1971 FY 1972 


Austria 

Be 1 g iun 

Bulgaria 

Czechoslovakia 

Denmark 

Finland 

F r ance 

German y 

Greece 

Hungar y 

Iceland 

I re 1 and 

Italy 

Lux emb o u r g 
Ma 1 t a 

Nether 1 and s 

No rway 

Po1 and 

Port uga1 

Roman i a 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

Turkey (Europe <5c 

United Kingdom 

USSR 

Yugos1 avia 
Other Europe 


26,322 

24,998 

18,151 
29,043 
14,590 
147,598 
256,583 
42,268 
12,205 

40,528 
161,324 


72,477 
27,550 

24.633 
30,686 

45,780 
46,299 
46,756 
Asia) 11,968 
389,587 
10,501 
20,585 

19.634 


24,586 

27,777 

15,493 
28,340 
14,657 
155,723 
257,369 
39,632 
11,659 

42,375 
151,414 


74,693 

28,259 

22,213 

28,011 

41,577 
44,028 
45,845 

389,907 
8,881 
21,236 
17,109 


25,758 
31,764 
1,208 
1 1 , 455 
29,783 
17,367 
184,531 
308,459 
47,636 
11,848 
4,006 
52,448 
178,005 
1 ,255 
2,073 
83,897 
36,565 
25,188 
36,437 
5,651 
51 ,456 
53,098 
52,316 

489,952 
9,995 
20,922 
2,971 


Total Europe 


1,520,066 


1,490,784 1,776,084 


^Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Annual Reports 
Tab Ie 16. 


375 











































































































































Country 

FY 1973 

FY 1974 

FY 1975 

Austria 

Be 1 g inn 

Bulgaria 

Czechos 1ovakia 
Denma r k 

Finland 

F ranee 

28,197 

32,958 

1,301 

11,555 

32,542 

20,082 
210,564 

33,963 

41,653 

1,720 

11,880 
35,236 
19,961 
214,997 

31,588 
37,174 
1,747 
11,883 
33,454 
22,365 
190,982 

Germany 

Greece 

361,063 

53,572 

412,370 
63,051 

385,296 
52,000 

Hungary 

Iceland 

13,583 

4,924 

14,365 

6,281 

14^063 

4,887 

I re 1 and 

Italy 

55,372 
179,166 

54,400 

184,428 

48,237 
170,628 

Luxembour g 

1,828 

1,812 

1,855 

Ma 1 t a 

2,141 

2,311 

2.353 

Nether 1 and s 

89,810 

95,045 

97,703 

No rway 

40,004 

41,766 

41,321 

Po1 and 

28,046 

30,258 

42,242 

Port uga1 

37,963 

44,218 

4 2^ 990 

Roman i a 

7,324 

9,129 

8^969 

Spa i n 

65,727 

71,481 

68,350 

Sweden 

61,668 

63,365 

64!892 

Switzer1 and 

63,574 

72,783 

72,521 

USSR 

11,796 

14,050 

15,781 

United Kingdom 

570,915 

630,876 

581,795 

Yugos1avia 

24,353 

28,621 

27,337 

Other Europe 

3,343 

9,250 

3,868 

Total Europe 

2,013,371 

2,212,756 

2,076,281 


376 











































































Country 

Austria 

Be i giun 

Bulgaria 

Czechos 1 ova kia 

Denma r k 

Finland 

F r ance 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Iceland 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembou r g 
Ma 1 t a 

Nether 1 and s 
No rway 
Poland 
Por t uga1 
Roman i a 
Spain 
Sweden 
Switze rland 
USSR 

United Kingdom 
Yugoslavia 
Other Europe 

Total Europe 


FY 1976 


31,664 
39,520 
2,042 
12,600 
38,627 
25,383 
215,553 
413,854 
53,707 
14,807 
8,774 
50,405 
185,780 
1,814 
2,405 
108,208 
44,999 
41,080 
42,469 
10,494 
79,972 
75,906 
79,950 
16,399 
619,114 
28,526 
4,374 

2,245,856 


FY 1977 


38,376 
48,235 
2,764 
12,181 
44,360 
26,043 
245,651 
449,581 
59,734 
15,770 
7,588 

52.664 

182,666 

2,240 

2,693 

126,013 

49,997 

38,974 

48,343 

14,362 

85,784 

85,968 

97,634 

15.664 
664,594 

29,674 

3,630 

2,541,126 


FY 1978 


46,145 
61,513 
2,705 
16,055 
51 ,801 
29,851 
282,025 
550,356 
65,006 
18,857 
10,396 
66,495 
220,010 
2,818 
3,167 
158,502 
56,351 
49,439 
56,476 
15,930 
98,528 
103,390 
115,601 
18,539 
878,035 
35,353 
5,683 

3,019,885 


377 






















































































APPENDIX XI 


Cul tural and Educational Excha nge: 

— • Organizations Involved in East-West Cooperation 

African Bibliographic Center 

AIESEC-U.S. -- International Association of Students in 
Economics and Business Management 

Alley Theater -- Houston 

A11iance Co 11ege 

American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies 

LTnguages^ 50013110 " ° f Teachers of Slavic and East European 

American Bar Association 

American Business Press 

American Conservatory Theater 

American Council of Learned Societies 

American Council of Teachers of Russian 

American Council of Young Political Leaders 

American Economic Association 

Anerican Field Service 

American Film Institute 

American Friends Service Corrm i 11 e e 

American Hungarian Foundation 

American Library Association 


American Newspaper Publishers Associati 
Appeal of Conscience Foundation 


on 

































































































Arena Stage 

Association of American Publishers 

Association of American University Presses 
Bryn Mawr Co 1 Iege 

University of California -- Los Angeles 
Catholic University 

Center for Applied Linguistics 


Center for Strategic and International Studies 
University 5 

Citizen Exchange Corps 

University of Connecticut 

Council of Chief State School Officers 

Council for International Educational Exchange 

Council on International NontheatricaI Events 

Duquesne University 

Educational Testing Service 

Eisenhower College 

Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships 

Experiment in International Living 

University of Florida 

Fordham University 

Forum for U.S.-Soviet Dialogue 

Friendship Ambassadors 

Future Farmers of America 


379 


- Georgetown 


















Georgetown University 
Goshen College 

Guthrie Theater -- Minneapolis 
Harvard University 
Hungarian Cultural Foundation 

IAESTE-U.S. -- Association for International Practical Training 
University of Illinois 

Indiana University 

International Research and Exchanges Board 
International Theater Institute of the United States 
University of Iowa, International Writing Program 
Iowa State University 

Jane Addams Peace Association 
Johns Hopkins University 
Juilliard School 
University of Kansas 

Kennan Institute of the Wilson Center, Smithsonian Institution 
-- Washington, D.C. 

Kent State University 

Charles F. Kettering Foundation 

Kosciuzko Foundation 

League of Women Voters 

Lock Haven State College 

University of Lowell -- Massachusetts 


38 0 






































Mankato State University 
University of Maryland 
The Metropolitan Museum of Art 
Michigan Institute of Technology 
Michigan State University 

^MUCIA* Un nn erSit -r C ° nsortium for International Activit 
MUCIA -- University of Minnesota 

The Museum of Modern Art 

National Academy of Sciences 

National Council for Social Studies 

National Education Association 

National 4-H Council 

National Gallery of Art 

National Governors Association 

State University of New York 

New York University 

Oberlin College, Wr iter-in-Residence Program 

University of Oklahoma 

Pacific Film Archive 

Peop1e-to-Peop1e International 

University of Pittsburgh 

Portland State University 

Renwick Gallery 

Rutgers -- The State University of New Jersey 

Sister Cities International (Town Affiliation Association) 


i e s 






































Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibitions Service 

Stanford Research Institute 

Texas Techno 1ogicaI University 

University of Texas 

United Nations Association 

V or Ti lm* and Te! evts* i on ‘ S^hoo 1 s ' Internat 1 ona 1 Center 

U.S. Conference of Mayors 

Re^rdrseriice 6 ”^ 65 Adm ^ ^ t r a t i o n - National Archives and 

U.S. Library of Co n g r e s s 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

University of Washington 

University of Wisconsin 

Vomen for Racial and Economic Equality 

Yale University 

YMCA 


38 


9 


BC-159 













































' O' 


A o. ** 0 7o° A' 



A 


o 

4 O ’ 

A •«<* 



'—' v 


, H 

^ *^ T ''y r \. ^ / I 

V ' V - 4 y ° * I*J 

* *3MV- 

j ® a y ,x o mmaamm * oAML - A%apS/ ° A MM ° * A ML. 

* 0V A * aa <o* 

* - V : ;;% <«V A. . 4 ^ ^ A.:v/» A qt- x * ^ 

'°-»’* A <. *'MA 4 >0^ A '° . * * A <. *4.., 4 G V <2, '*> • * * A <> 

, <A 6 0 « o A /A . I ' * „ A' c o « o „ $ qV ,*■'•„ O A ' 0 0 " ° •» ^ 

.A , 6 ^tsrv % /O t ^3-7 , .-) A . <► *#» r U 4 /XU, 7 o A •." *P 

«fev* r^USC*. "W 4flffe>: r^ffe. '^o< " AiA '°v 4 . 

X o,. *„ i a A- 1 . ■ ; o .0 v> *■ 1 

^ ■^/•"(\\ _Y-' > 

*♦; w •'£& \/ #§|; AA X/ • ■ 

.* A \ •:«#/ /\ * IW * a a •: 

' ' A* o '°.A A * 4 A 

A ."•, *o A" o c “°* A* 

C + l *e>sr7?^ •* o — 

*V <? V 

•** o' . fc 


A* ** 


M? 


A" ^ 

V ^ A 0 ' A 1 **' 

** -A .•£»•, .m 






sr» a A 
A A' ^ °. 


0 

4 O. 
■/*> 




’° A A. 

V*<M*V A A ' 
A . • 1 # ♦ 




j* A c w + W2*A 

** A? •V^P0i # ‘- 

I o> ,%^M. ^ o 

^ ,? V* ^ "1^ 

V ^* A v **■"-•’*, A A **^ A \ * ; ■■’*'*A’ A A 

A A .*^4: A A A A -'AM A A A 

^ A'SAr A"V 'Vj,;;?::'; A^V VMAiA /\ '. 

-ip *. a y V/ • ■» ^ ^ /\®Ti «/ a, • is -< v - ^ 

. ** A <A *'.*A A^ A '«».»* A A (? o *..»• A ^ 

A V c o « ° * ^‘ A V - “ - A A ... A % - - - A 


*• -A A 
• r G^ 

i ^ <s* ^ • 


A *> ’ * 

A . 






o " o 



- . 4 *°- aSM’M ^ •. 

^ A****"’ A M *> 

V V 4 5 ' * C' 01 - « * “ 

. A «. + 

" A 



0*0 




, <s> 

* -^L t V^' o ji 

•^o 4 .'.AsS-.; ■’bv* ."- 

’° A Au V ^v/mx v ^ 

A A 0 <a " A H 

V' A. A *yz*' * .V 

- * An * A X ■ /k p A 

A A j»v *5 ..^ 

* I; '. -A <> ■*» ^ o V v^ 4 A *^A • -' * <y- ^ o 

G v o '•.** A A ''.A 4 A x? '*..| 

". 'A r C ' ,- t A* O ^ ^ r c t'Ml 4 * 

^ ~ ^ ^ A 

o > . . «*• n' 


o A \^ V •* 

;°. <U* 






o. * * A 

O ’ 0 0 " 0 

A 'V* ^ ■ 

• :» XfM ‘ '° v - ^o 

?y 0 A.. A A A "A A ^ 

> '/.vj-- »' o A. * A'A'A* , h o M 1 ’ ■ ■.. : '*•' o A * »* , n v o 

A* * e " 0 ’ f 0 

*_ A A v V V % A A A«*aA ^ v A A 4**, 

A A * A»fA°o ^ A' *■ &*’■'■,?% • a A * Axg aa ^ A * ^ • mm A »A 

a^ mm 

«» ^.V. (/•’!•;.:^' % /!_••■' ,-^K ♦ v-j > : > 0 4 v v* M> ^ iv;' 1 ' ^ yi ^ * {^ • ' : i 4 

<M *'..«* A’ A <x *'V. 4 4 .(y 0 A ^ * 

» (A .*•'*« ' O 4*1 o 0 " 0 * , M>. . 1 ' • * ■'o .A c o « o 

, <■ t fX . 1 /r??-, -r o .1*0' » r *r rV ‘ „ /x?^, •» o A 

v ,'k ^ *7^. ^ * JiPa v <^CN\\\\'& * ~y , v * 

* •X 0 < .‘4^>: r ov > + * n < 



A f ^>. 

A ^ 


' f1 A °^ °x° 

-AA- 



MM o * a.' 

<L V * & x ■* 

A '•.»* A <> ^T.O .0 

> 0 L*ff ‘q .<£>a c 0 N ° * ^ n ,k 

° V c° M 

'"o A Ma a 


A v °^ 4 '° ; ' 0 ° A ’ \ A v 

v A^<7k:* A A ; -x \> 4 

^ A ^ \ ^ ^££°o % A 

MA v- ' L MM r ° Mr a 

MM- viMtl'r .M-V 

• ^ -o „ . 4 A 



MM o 

<M * 4 ' A ^ ‘ 'o-.; i 

’ .AA % ^ r 0^ *- L ' - A °o 

^ A .VmM'M?®- A, Mi 

^ ^ >rS777fi?l * 4 O. 

. IHV\SS> *> ^ «- ‘Va v.AM '/.a ** . ^ ^ 

v a .-- Mv *"“*'/° ..; v--''a °" %r ^' " , 

; %a -‘M \/ .♦;* 


MX 



•. X-M 



A * • ■ 0 


c»-A. A.-"* 

;ffl: X-s % 

j ^jiii'r^ 7 “ t? U M> ° •* o ,S o tfMM'S * ♦V'^, -'". i-i 

A" ' ; V '-^ *A:;i;^/ : 'M A s A ^ MM-. 1 - 

<M * •M 5 4 A^ O A <M ^..4 4 A* A 'o. t - A <. */ 

-». ^ o v t * L JA" ‘° A o 0 " 0 * ^ o v .•’■'** ’o A" .«" 0 

x- o * ■' o V . ft iAms . X* o' 

A °^ - «A ^; : M* *? *A 

vsys A °o. ** 0 „ o ** ,0° \ 






-0 T 

A q. 



4> 

'X, A 
O N 







* -2 Q 




3 o &<y .••VA°o ,f .-Af. V .<>< 

- iP v\ 



I -afe*. \/ •- 



%^-T.* .o- 

> V C' .<)■ ' 

* tp s- ’ 




5 t’jrfk:* ^ • t#o 



A 0 « :£*%££• 'of :*§^k: ’>*«« %>f *V' r- •*«.„< 


, n o ^ -T^T'* «> 

: . i • •- «> v 




**v% cv o • 




» 0 ^ -.war' ,f°- 








<A **T.V 'o '•.** A 

*^o* .V^r- *bv* :Awn 







“ • *P ' ^ ‘-,/rfc, -» 


* a.K 

* A* 

V *1^1% A A ’ ,*••. > V \1AL% A, 

\ <? % ** % / ♦* 


A A 








'0> A 

. **b A »•-•• 

> ° A* A^SJuv V . 





*°^<K 



cr t * l "« 

C *W25*A_ ° /* • 

o V 



-A' 







r. ,C* 5 '«.*« A 

G *W2feA. ° . * 






.r r .« ♦ o, > <i* ,«•• r c> .c■ ,'*o, ^ A »***'«. o. . * * *., A* ■»,■ 4 s 

•-«.».% * .♦ .vefe*. v a ,’ A vv <$, *«• .*<£3v. v if .•■ V/X' tt. A * • 


* v*©5*.* 



.0* A> ■'••»* A a *-..•* Jy y> '•• * A ' ,0* V 



'r. a t» 

• Arv A * J 




-W. '■’ A w «? ^ c ■ " A > "• 

-»•<>- > \r 4 »*_*f. > »!.•.?» v v A ’ 1 '* c -<v 




=V °* ^ 

®* a * A or" t- 1 "* ^ 

;• , BOWS nos. ,*■ -V* ,N Aj- 



- 'A.. A v 


^ A*’ 

A A : '4 . ;• 


tVf ^ 'i 


iSS 


f:«AY 82 

W ( 

?L 





* * 

• 5 * *C A '»• *• A A •»..* 

»- •'of ^o* 


a. ^ 







.« v \*^k*.\_ /.•:«:•.%. y\'/&i-.\. ,f° a^a-.'V > v \-^ 















































